Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1899.

Return ordered
of all the Draft Provisional Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, which in the Session of 1927 have been reported on by the Commissioners; together with the names of the Commissioners; the first and also the last day of the sittings of each group; the number of days on which each body of Commissioners sat; the number of days on which each Commissioner has served; the number of days occupied by each Draft Provisional Order before Commissioners; the Draft Provisional Orders the Preambles of which were reported to have been proved; and the Draft Provisional Orders the Preambles of which were reported to have been not proved:
And also a Statement showing how all Draft Provisional Orders of the Session of 1927 have been dealt with."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

NEW WRIT.

For the Borough Northampton in the room of Lieut.-General Sir Arthur Edward Aveling Holland, K.C.B., K.C.M.G., D.S.O., M.V.O., deceased.— [Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Oral Answers to Questions — WHITE SLAVE TRAFFIC (REPORT).

Viscount SANDON: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the type of matter expunged from the published Part II Report on the White Slave Traffic; who did the editing, at whose orders, and to what extent in quantity; whether it is the intention to shield Governments or individuals; and whether he will urge before the League of Nations that widespread advertisement
of names and offences of nations and individuals is desirable, for the purposes of pillory?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): Before authorising publication the Council of the League referred the Report to the Governments of the countries concerned for their observations. The replies were considered at a meeting of the Special Body of Experts, who, in the light of the further information available, corrected certain statements of fact and made some minor drafting amendments. Where the views of the experts differed from those of the Governments no alteration was made. No corrections were made except by the Body of Experts themselves and on their sole responsibility. The Council has authorised publication of Part II of the Report, together with the communications from the Governments and the Experts' comments. Copies of this document will shortly be available to the public. Whilst the Expert Committee categorically disclaim any intention of criticising any particular country, they make it clear that no amendments have been made with the object of shielding Governments or individuals. As regards the last part of the question, my Noble Friend will realise that the information could not have been obtained except under a promise of secrecy as to names.

Colonel DAY: Can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that none of the expunged matter refers to Great Britain?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I think I should be quite safe in saying that, but, as a matter of fact, I do not know what was expunged and what was not. Whatever alterations were made were made by the Body of Experts who prepared the original Report, because they thought it necessary to correct it in the light of the later information which they received.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVES (MOTOR CARS).

Mr. RAMSDEN: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many of our diplomatic representatives are provided with cars or are authorised
to purchase them out of public funds; and whether all those cars are of British manufacture?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Forty-two diplomatic representatives are provided with cars from public funds; 33 of these cars are of British manufacture. I may add that wherever it is feasible British cars are supplied when old ones have to be replaced.

ADMIRALTY.

Colonel DAY: 11.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of civil servants employed on the staff of the Admiralty for the year ended 31st December, 1913, and for the year ended 31st December, 1926?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): The number of civil servants employed during any year varies from date to date. The numbers actually employed at Admiralty Headquarters on the 31st December, 1913, and the 31st December, 1926, were 1,910 and 2,941, respectively.

Colonel DAY: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say why there has been such a very large increase, considering that the Forces have been reduced?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Various reasons have already been given to the House on different occasions. The subject is continually under review, and is under review again at the present time.

MINISTRIES (RE-ORGANISATION.)

Mr. R. MORRISON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes, before the House rises, to state the policy of the Government with respect to the future of the Ministry of Transport, Department of Mines, and Department of Overseas Trade, respectively?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): Sir; the policy of the Government is, as was announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget speech, to effect a contraction by every possible means in the administrative structure of the State. The proposed abolition as separate Departments of the Department of Overseas Trade, the Ministry of Transport and the Mines Department cannot be effected without legislation, except
in the case of the Department of Overseas Trade. Since the intention to abolish these Departments was made public the Government have received a continuous series of representations from traders, from transport organisations, from miners and other interests concerned in their activities, as well as from a large number of Members of this House. In these circumstances it is evident that the necessary legislation will be controversial. It must therefore be considered in relation to the time of the House likely to be available next Session and to the general state of Parliamentary business. It would not be right to make demands upon Parliamentary time out of all proportion to the actual savings likely to be effected.

Mr. MORRISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the actual effect of that reply means that the Departments will go on as usual until the Government can find time for legislation?

The PRIME MINISTER: That seems to be a reasonable deduction.

Mr. PARKINSON: In view of the fact that the Secretary for Mines is going to India, who is going to take charge of the Mines Department in his absence?

The PRIME MINISTER: Well, I think that must rest with the head of the Government who will attend to that particular duty of his in due time.

Mr. HARRIS: Do we understand from the answer that the Ministers in charge of these Departments are to retain their jobs?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is, of course, one way of putting it. I think I would rather say that for the time being they will carry on.

BRITISH OFFICIAL'S ARREST, GERMANY (COMPENSATION).

Commander OLIVER LOCKERLAMPSON: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that Mr. Ethelbert William Fawcett, late British Vice-Consul at Helsingfors, Finland, was illegally arrested by the Germans in March, 1918, while acting as consular officer; that he was subsequently held as a common prisoner in Germany; and that only £59 has been paid by the
Reparation Claims Department; and what further steps can be taken to compensate Mr. Fawcett?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware of the facts stated by my hon. and galland Friend. So far as the Foreign Office is concerned, however, no further payment is due to Mr. Fawcett, who received from this Department his salary and maintenance expenses during the period of his internment in Germany.

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Fawcett was nine months in prison, and under the possibility of death at any moment; whether he was not the servant of the Foreign Office; and whether he thinks that £59 is sufficient compensation?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already told my hon. and gallant Friend that this official has had all the money due to him from the Foreign Office. The question of compensation does not come under the Foreign Office, but it is settled by another Department. I understand that my hon. and gallant Friend has already addressed a question to that Department.

Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: What was the total amount of the compensation?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot say.

Sir F. HALL: Then he got nothing.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

BRITISH MERCHANDISE, SHANTUNG (CONFISCATION).

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that on the 12th instant a cargo of British goods of the value of $420,000 (Mexican) was detained at Lintsing, in the province of Shantung, whilst in transit from Tientsin on the pretext of the demand for the payment of a hitherto unknown likin; that the owner of the goods arranged for payment of the likin under protest, but that Chang Tsung, the Tupan of Shantung, over-ruled the arrangement
and confiscated the goods, and has given orders that they should be sold; and whether he will take steps to secure the release of the goods forthwith?

Mr. FOOT MITCHELL: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware of the disregard of reasonable security for trade shown by some of the Northern Chinese leaders, and especially by the military governor of Shantung, in whose territory open confiscation of valuable British merchandise has recently occurred; and will he make representations on this matter?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: On the 15th December, His Majesty's Minister at Peking reported that the Shantung authorities were threatening the confiscation of a consignment of goods valued at some $400,000 (£40,000) belonging to a British company. These goods were being conveyed in boats on the Grand Canal from Tientsin to Southern Chihli. The route took them through Lintsing, in a corner of Shantung, where they were held up for the enforcement of various irregular taxes. The company agreed to pay these taxes; in spite of this, orders were given for the confiscation of the goods. It is alleged that these orders emanated from Chang Tsung-chang, the Military Governor of Shantung. In any case, the action of the Shantung authorities appears to be pure robbery.
On the Minister's instructions His Majesty's Consul-General at Tsinanfu, the capital of Shantung, made protests locally; Sir M. Lampson also made the strongest possible verbal representations to the Minister for Foreign Affairs in Peking, who promised to do his best. He assured Sir M. Lampson that he had already, in response to a written communication from His Majesty's Legation, telegraphed to Shantung, and that he would now take up the matter with the Premier and with Marshal Chang Tsolin's headquarters. He confessed, however, that he himself had no authority in Shantung.
His Majesty's Government cannot overlook this gross violation of the elementary rights of British merchants, and they count on Marshal Chang Tso-lin, who claims to control the province of Shantung, to take steps to secure the release of these goods.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: On the facts stated, may I ask what action the Government propose to take?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have told the hon. Member what action we have taken. With regard to the future, I think that I had better say nothing.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it right to say that these are the antiNationalist forces in Northern China?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will not ask me to classify every faction in China.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is Chang Tsung-chang not one of those upon whom favours have been showered by the British Government?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not aware that any favours have been showered by the British Government.

BRITISH CONCESSIONS.

Sir F. HALL: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the value of the leases in Chinese treaty ports which were conceded to Great Britain by the Chinese Government between 1851 and 1861, and which are now to be given up; whether the interests in question were acquired by purchase; if so, on what terms; how many separate properties are affected; whether all of these are now in the hands of British subjects; whether the terms of surrender will provide for the properties not being disposed of in any way that might be detrimental to British interests; and whether other foreign Powers are adopting a similar policy in this matter?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 32.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works what Crown property he holds on Chinese territory; what is the total estimated value at present prices of this property; whether it is being disposed of; if so, at what price; and what is the reason for this sale, surrender, or gift of national property?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Most of the information asked for will be found in the Treasury Minute dated the 7th December, which has been presented to the House. The value of the leases
cannot be accurately assessed at the present moment; but, according to a valuation made in 1922, previous to the outbreak of the anti-foreign agitations in China, the worth of the reversionary interest in the land and buildings held under leases with an unexpired term of approximately 30 years was £730,000; at a later date it was anticipated that these reversionary interests might have realised about £400,000. The position in China, however, renders it impossible to proceed with the scheme for the sale of these interests without guarantees of tenure which would be wholly inconsistent with the policy of His Majesty's Government. The land was acquired under perpetual lease from the Chinese Government, to whom a fixed ground rent continues to be paid, and concurrently by purchase from the actual Chinese owners. The concession areas are situated at Tientsin, Hankow, Kiukiang, Chinkiang, Amoy and Canton; they consist of a total of 232 acres divided into 234 lots. These properties are chiefly in British but partly in other hands. They are to be transferred to the present lot-holders without payment and unconditionally except for the proviso that the lot-holders shall bear any expenses arising from the assignments. As regards future ownership, I have no reason to anticipate any change likely to be detrimental to British interests, but I must remind the hon. and gallant Members that it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to relax rather than to extend British control in the administration of these municipal areas. Other foreign Powers had immediately transferred their perpetual leases to their respective lot-holders; and in no other case was a foreign Government ground landlord of any similar area in Chinese territory.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do I understand that we are getting no return from these tenants for the giving up of Crown property worth £400,000?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I should be very sorry to assess the value of the property to be transferred at £400,000, or anything like that figure, to-day. You cannot sell a property unless you are prepared to give a good title, and, as we are not prepared to guarantee the future of these properties, their value in the market is practically nil. It is really not possible that His Majesty's Govern-
ment should, in the altered conditions, remain ground landlords in Chinese territory.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will it not make it more difficult in the future, if we give us this property to the tenants, to negotiate with the Chinese authorities?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I think not; I think the contrary will be the case.

Sir F. HALL: Am I right in assuming that no ground rent is being paid to the Chinese authorities, seeing that we have not possession?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I think I told my hon. and gallant Friend—

Sir F. HALL: You said it had been paid.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I said:
to whom a fixed ground rent continues to be paid.
A ground rent will be payable by the lot-holders to whom the property is transferred.

Sir F. HALL: Is it equitable that ground rents should still be paid, and yet at the same time the lease-holders of the properties may have no value in them at all?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: My hon. and gallant Friend is mistaken in saying that the property has no value to them. It has not a marketable value which we could sell in the present circumstances, but, of course, it has a value to the lot-holder.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Arising out of the original answer, is the Foreign Secretary aware that the same kind of negotiation that is now being carried through with this company in China was going on during the Labour Government's tenure of office, and that the Labour Government turned it down, the reason being that we have no claim on this land at all, and yet, if anything happens in China, our Forces will be sent out to defend this land, which is not ours at all, but which belongs to the Chinese. [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"] I would like a reply.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know whether this is the proper time for a Debate; I must not make a speech in answer to the one which the hon. Gentle-
man has just delivered. I do not know to what he is referring when he talks about "this company." It is for the very reason that we are not prepared to employ our Forces in guarding this property that we are unable to sell it with a marketable title.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions? In the first place, why are we not having a continuous policy in this matter; and, secondly, is it not the fact that these leaseholders have bought and sold their title to the land for a long period of years, always subject to the British Government's right of reversion? Has not this right of reversion entered into every transaction concerning this land, and why are we now surrendering it?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: We are surrendering the right of reversion because His Majesty's Government feel that it is incompatible with the newer conditions in China that we should continue to occupy the position of ground landlords in that country.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: We must not continue to debate the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — ABYSSINIA.

BLUE NILE WATERS.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make any statement about the negotiations with the royal Abyssinian Government regarding the proposed Blue Nile barrage?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Since the negotiations are still in progress, I regret that I am unable at this stage to add anything to the reply which was given on the 22nd of November last.

BRITISH CARAVAN (ATTACK).

Mr. LUMLEY: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the conclusion arrived at by the Court of Arbitration on the attack made by Abyssinian soldiers last June on a British camel caravan?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The Court fixed the damages at $25,000 (about £3,600), and this sum has duly been paid by the Abyssinian Government. It also
recommended the removal of the Abyssinian officer chiefly responsible, and he has accordingly been dismissed from his post by the Abyssinian Government. The findings of the Court thus bear out the view of this outrage which I expressed in my reply to the hon. Member for Central Southwark (Colonel Day) on the 25th of July last.

ANGLO-RUSSIAN RELATIONS.

Mr. PONSONBY: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any report to make to this House as to the result of his conversation with M. Litvinoff at Geneva?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The communiqué which M. Litvinoff issued to the Press immediately after the interview said all that there was to say, and I undertook to give no further details.

Mr. PONSONBY: Is there any hope of these conversations being resumed?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I cannot see any reason for resuming them until the circumstances change.

ANGLO-PORTUGUESE ALLIANCE.

Mr. LUMLEY: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards the Anglo-Portuguese alliance has been in any way modified in respect of the Portuguese colonies in Africa?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer is in the negative. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity of stating publicly that His Majesty's Government on their side have every intention of maintaining in force the ancient alliance between this country and Portugal which, of course, covers the Portuguese Colonies in Africa.

Mr. DALTON: Is there any truth in the statement that these Portuguese Colonies are involved in any system of exchanges in connection with Mandates?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly there is no truth whatever in that statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

DOCKYARD EMPLOYéS.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 14.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the new examinations for promotion in His Majesty's Dockyards will take place?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Examinations for certain grades of professional subordinate officer will, it is expected, be held in the course of the coming year, probably in the second half of the year.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, with reference to the last batch of 800 discharges from His Majesty's Dockyards, whether, seeing that the Admiralty stated that the reason for making these discharges was that the re-tubing of boilers in His Majesty's ships was not undertaken in accordance with the plans formulated because it was found that the life of the tubes was longer than anticipated, he will say when the survey was made which induced the Admiralty to come to the conclusion that these tubes had a longer life than previously estimated?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The surveys were made between November, 1926, and January, 1927. As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, the dockyard programme which is prepared in the Autumn for the ensuing year must necessarily be of a somewhat tentative nature, and subject to subsequent additions and omissions.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: If these surveys were held as far back as November, 1926, and January, 1927, can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say why it is that no announcement was made indicating that there would be any discharges until August of this year?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: The surveys took place between the dates that I have mentioned, but the final decision regarding what was going to be done on these surveys was not made until later, in March or April. The dockyard authorities postponed discharges as long as possible, in the hope of additional work becoming available, including repayment work. Actually, as the hon. Member knows, it was only possible to secure additional repayment work sufficient to employ 200 men, and 800 men were, therefore, discharged. Obviously,
we are as anxious as we can be not to discharge men unless it is absolutely necessary, and that is the reason why the delay has taken place.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman see how serious the position is, when it was only stated in August that the work which a few months before was estimated to be required would not be undertaken?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: I have tried to give the hon. Member the reason that we had in view, which was, if possible, not to discharge so many men.

DEVONPORT DOCKYARD (OUTSIDE CONTRACTORS).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what facilities in Devonport Dockyard are given to outside contractors; and what sums are charged for these facilities by the Admiralty?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Outside contractors are given certain workshop accommodation in the yard. Charges are made for the supply of power, electric light, gas, water, etc., the sums charged being dependent upon the amount consumed. Facilities are also given to contractors to have work undertaken by the yard on their behalf.

NAVAL STRENGTH (GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES).

The following Question stood on the Order Paper in the name of Sir F. HALL:
17. To ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what will be the comparative strength in five years' time of the American and British Navies in the event of effect being given to the five years' building programme of the general board of the United States of America's Navy providing for the building of 26 cruisers of 10,000 tons, three aeroplane carriers, five fleet submarines, 18 destroyer leaders, and four battleships to replace an equal number now growing obsolete?

Mr. THURTLE: On a point of Order. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this question is not in order. As I understand it, the American naval programme referred to is contingent upon approval by the American Senate and the American House of Representatives. As that approval has not been given, I sub-
mit that the question is based on a contingency, and, therefore, out of order.

Mr. SPEAKER: Although I have not the facts in my mind at the moment, I think that that answer has been given by the Government. Questions of this kind have been allowed before, relating to naval programmes in different countries, and I do not think it is out of order.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM: Until much more detailed information is available in regard to the particulars of the projected United States naval programme and the dates on which it is proposed to lay down the ships included in the programme, no comparison of the probable relative strength of the British and United States Navies five years hence is possible.

Sir F. HALL: Is it not a little difficult for our Admiralty to take into consideration the desire of the Government and reduce their building programme when other countries adopt a policy of continually increasing their navies?

Mr. DALTON: Can the Parliamentary Secretary give us an assurance that neither the Admiralty nor the Government are going to be stampeded into any panic-building programme in competition with America?

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

SIR ALAN COBHAM'S MACHINE (DAMAGE).

Colonel DAY: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is now in a position to state the amount of damage done to Sir Alan Cobham's machine during its landing at the seaplane base at Malta on Tuesday, 29th November?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): A pair of wing tip floats was carried away by the swell during landing and the port elevator and lower port plane were damaged by heavy sea whilst the machine was being beached. These parts are being renewed with as little delay as possible.

SCHNEIDER CUP.

Mr. VIANT: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for Air the total number of machines designed and constructed for the Schneider Cup, 1927; and for what purpose will they now be used?

Sir P. SASSOON: Seven high-speed air craft were built this year, and six of these were made available for the Schneider Cup race. They were constructed for the purpose of carrying out an important programme of research into the problems of high-speed flight and they are being used for that purpose. I may add that valuable data bearing on the problem of improving the speed of air craft have already been secured with these machines.

Mr. VIANT: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for Air if he can give the total expense incurred by the Air Ministry in connection with the race for the Schneider Cup, 1927, including the cost of the machines and all operational expenses, the charge for pilots and mechanics during the whole period, and the outgoings in respect of travelling, hotel and housing expenses, and the other charges incidental to the race?

Sir P. SASSOON: The cost incurred for transportation, travelling, subsistence allowances, oil, etc., in connection with the race is estimated at approximately £3,000, but all the accounts have not as yet come to hand and this figure is therefore provisional. The cost of the machines made available for the Schneider Trophy race cannot legitimately be reckoned as part of the expense incurred. The machines were constructed under a programme of development work on high-speed aircraft, and experimental machines for this purpose would still have been necessary even if there had been no contest for the Schneider Trophy.

Sir HARRY BRITTA1N: Is it not right that we should not forget the wholehearted hospitality of the Italian Government to the entire team during their stay there?

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Was not the expenditure on these aeroplanes well worth it in view of the impetus given to British trade?

Sir P. SASSOON: Yes.

Mr. THURTLE: Has the Department received any protest from the Conservative Economy Committee on the matter?

AIRSHIP R 100.

Mr. VIANT: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for Air the total structural weight, with the proposed passenger
accommodation, of the airship R 100; how this weight compares with the maximum weight allowed in the contract for this airship; if the scheme of factors for safety as laid down in the Report of the Airworthiness of Airships Panel has been closely adhered to in the design of this airship; if the two scientists who have been examining the plans of the two airships have concluded their examination of the R 100; and if formal approval has been given to the design of this airship?

Sir P. SASSOON: I am reluctant at this stage to give estimated figures, which may subsequently have to be modified; but on the information supplied to me by the company it does not appear likely that the total fixed weights of R 100, including passenger car and fittings, will exceed the contract figure of 90 tons. The two scientists who are investigating the airworthiness of the two airships cannot complete their investigation of R 100 for some months, but so far it appears that the factors of safety laid down in the Report of the Airworthiness of Airships Panel have been fully adhered to.

Colonel DAY: Cannot the hon. Baronet give us an answer to that part of the question which asks for the proposed passenger accommodation?

Sir P. SASSOON: I said the total fixed weights including passenger car and fittings.

Colonel DAY: Cannot the hon. Baronet say what equipment that will be for passengers?

Sir P. SASSOON: I am afraid that I could not say without notice.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACT WORK (BANK HOLIDAY PAY).

Mr. WINDSOR: 33.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware that a request has been made that employés in the building maintenance section of the Office of Works should be paid for the bank holiday, 27th December, in common with those who are direct employés; that the request has been refused on the ground that the Department has no authority to make this
payment to those who are not direct employés; and whether, in view of the fact that many of these indirect employés have been under the Department for many years, that they were paid for the holiday on the occasion of the last coronation, and that those who gave military service during the War received identical treatment with those who were direct employés, he will have the matter reconsidered?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir VIVIAN HENDERSON: (for the FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS): The men in question are employed by a contractor, and the conditions of their employment are in no way different from those of the many thousands of men employed by contractors on Government work all over the country. My Noble Friend feels, therefore, that this is not an occasion similar to those mentioned by the hon. Member and that he would not be justified in this case in extending to the men in question the privileges enjoyed by the direct employés of the Department.

Mr. WINDSOR: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that the engineering and gas industries have already granted these concessions, and would it not be a right and proper thing for the Government to carry out similar concessions, especially in view of peace in industry in our time?

Sir V. HENDERSON: I am afraid I have nothing to add to the answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

STATISTICS.

Mr. ROBINSON: 19.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of insured persons aged 65 or over, giving the separate figures for men and women, who will cease to be eligible for unemployment insurance benefit after 2nd January, 1928?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): It is estimated that approximately 342,000 persons aged 65 and over, including about 319,000 men and 23,000 women, who are now insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, will cease to be insured as from
2nd January, 1928, under the provisions of the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925.

Mr. COMPTON: 24.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will furnish a Return showing, for the last convenient date, the highest and lowest percentage of unemployment by localities corresponding to the statistics given in his answer to a similar question on 23rd November, 1926?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The information desired is being tabulated, and as soon as the work is completed I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. GROVES: 23.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the number of persons on the live register of the Stratford, Canning Town, and Leyton Exchanges for 1st November, 1924, 1925, 1926 and 1927?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The total number of persons on the registers of these three Exchanges on the first Monday in November of the years in question were as follows: 1924, 27,110; 1925, 22,906; 1926, 19,997; and 1927, 15,541.

Mr. COMPTON: 25.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will furnish a Return showing, for the year 1926–27, the aggregate amounts paid in unemployment benefit and received in contributions from the workers, the employers, and the State, respectively, comparable with the Return given on 17th November, 1926; and will he give the revised figures for the year 1925–26?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: As the reply involves a statement in tabular form, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

The accounts of the Unemployment Fund are now made up annually to the 31st March in each year, commencing with the account to 31st March, 1927. Accordingly, figures of revenue and expenditure for the insurance year 1926–27, which ended on 3rd July last, are not readily
available. The following table gives the approximate figures for the insurance

—
Insurance Year 1925–26 (6th July, 1925, to 4th July, 1926–52 weeks).
Period 5th July, 1926, to 30th June,1927 (51 weeks).


£
£


Total Benefit
…
…
…
…
…
43,660,000
46,810,000


Contributions:—


Workers
…
…
…
…
…
15,790,000
13,020,000


Employers
…
…
…
…
…
17,760,000
14,880,000


War Service Departments (for ex-Service Men)
320,000
330,000


Exchequer
…
…
…
…
…
12,910,000
10,900,000








46,780,000
39,130,000

In addition to unemployment benefit, the Unemployment Fund bore charges in respect of administration, interest, and compensatory payments in respect of abolition of refunds, etc. The amount of the Exchequer contributions for the period 5th July, 1926, to 30th June, 1927, is subject to adjustment.

INSURANCE LAW.

Sir JOHN SIMON: 20.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will, in the event of the Unemployment Insurance Bill of this Session becoming law, prepare and issue a White Paper setting out in the plainest and simplest terms possible the statute law of unemployment insurance so far as regards contributions, benefits, conditions, appeals, and the like, so that Members of Parliament, local administrators and others specially concerned may have this information without having to trace back through the statute book the results of legislation by reference?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: In accordance with the usual practice, it is proposed to set out the principal provisions of the amended unemployment insurance scheme in a set of explanatory leaflets which will be available to the public. I will consider in what form the information in these leaflets can be made available to the Members of the House.

Sir J. SIMON: Has not the right hon. Gentleman misapprehended the question? I was not asking whether he proposes to issue some document which will explain the changes that have been made. I was asking him whether he proposes to issue some document which

year 1925–26, and for the period 5th July, 1926, to 30th June, 1927:

will show what is the result of those changes and what is the present law.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I think that is the meaning of my answer, the words of which were that it is proposed to set out the principal provisions of the amended unemployment insurance scheme. That is intended to convey the state of the law as it will be under the amended unemployment insurance scheme.

Mr. WILFRID PALING: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman knows what the Bill really means and is going to explain it?

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Will the right hon. Gentleman include with the leaflets circulated the written answer he gave to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Viscount Sandon) yesterday explaining the effect and cost of the Amendments made during the passage of the Bill through Parliament?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will consider anything, but on the spur of the moment, that does not seem to me to be a matter of the effect of the amendment of the law, but rather a statement of what would be simply concessions.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there was issued to members of local committees a codified form of the Regulations now operating, and would he consider issuing the same type of book after the passing of the new Act in the same language, explaining the full provisions, together with the amended as well as the old provisions?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am certainly going to consider the best and most handy form in which the informa-
tion can be conveyed to local persons interested. Naturally, it will not be in the same words, but in a form in which it makes the substance of the changes most easily intelligible.

Sir J. SIMON: Is the right hon. Gentleman considering whether the documents he is referring to will be documents which will be available to Members of the House of Commons, because they will be Parliamentary papers and which they can ask for on the pink slip if they like?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will consider that. I have not as yet made any decision about it. In any case, I can undertake that copies of any communication shall be put in the Library, but I will consider the further point so as to meet the convenience of Members of the House as best I can.

Mr. BARR: Can the right hon. Gentleman not give an undertaking that he will send a copy to every Member of Parliament?

SCOTTISH TWEED AND BOOT TRADES.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the shortage of labour in the Scottish tweed trade and of female labour in the boot trade in the Northampton district; and whether steps can be taken to direct unemployed labour to these industries?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am having inquiries made and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

TRADE BOARDS ACT (TAILORING TRADE).

Sir F. HALL: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the remarks made by the registrar at Clerkenwell Police Court in a case which came before him on 12th December, in which a machinist named Miss Olive Skellitt sued Albert Moont, a tailor, for wages; and whether the rate of wages which it transpired during the hearing of the case is being paid by this firm to young girls who work for them has been approved by a Trade Board?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have seen a report of this case and have had an inspection made of the establishment concerned. The rates of wages paid to
all the workers, including the female workers, were found to be at or above the appropriate minimum rates fixed by the Trade Board. Miss Skellitt was in receipt of net earnings on piece work averaging more than 30s. for the eight weeks of her employment preceding her last week, in respect of which the employer is stated to have withheld payment of wages after she had left without notice.

Sir F. HALL: Is not this an object lesson for those who are desirous of allowing aliens to come into this country?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Major GLYN: 34.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what has been to date the total sum paid as compensation by the Government to the owners of animals slaughtered as a result of foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks since 1918; what is the wage paid to the slaughterers; and whether, in view of the cost to the taxpayer, he will consider offering a reward of at least £20,000 sterling to any scientist who will produce an effective remedy or preventive of this disease?

Major Sir GEORGE HENNESSY (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): I have been asked to reply. The total sum paid in compensation since 1918 to the 15th December, 1927, amounts to £5,186,833, but £877,037 has been received from the sale of carcases of animals slaughtered. The wages paid to slaughtermen vary according to the district and the special circumstances of the case, but are generally about 1s. 6d. per head for cattle and 1s. per head for pigs and sheep. The discovery of an effective remedy or preventive of the disease is more likely to be made by the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Research Committee which has been at work since 1924 than by the offer of a monetary reward.

Major GLYN: Will my hon. and gallant Friend convey to the Minister the request that he will find out what steps are being taken not only by that Committee but by other countries, and that if there were such a reward you would have the whole world working to try to get a solution of this problem which you will not get by confining it solely to this country?

Mr. SHEPHERD: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what amount of compensation has been paid to farm labourers who have lost their employment through the slaughter of these animals?

Sir G. HENNESSY: I should require notice of that question.

NAURU AND OCEAN ISLAND PHOSPHATE ROCK.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 36.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in order to assist agriculture, he will take steps to ensure that we receive our due share, in accordance with the agreement, of Nauru Ocean phosphate rock and so provide a high-grade fertiliser at a reasonable price?

Sir G. HENNESSY: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given by the Prime Minister to a similar question put to him by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kettering (Sir M. Manningham-Buller) on the 14th December.

EGGS (MARKING).

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 37.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he has any further statement to make as to the marking of eggs under the Merchandise Marks Act?

Sir G. HENNESSY: My right hon. Friend has nothing to add to the statement made in reply to a question put to him on the 15th of December by my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is not the principal difficulty here the fact that the Danish farmers were preparing to mark their eggs "Danish eggs are the best?"

Sir G. HENNESSY: I am not aware of that fact.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

TOWN-PLANNING SCHEME, STANMORE.

Mr. GARDNER: 42.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that Clause 29 (3) of the Regulations for the preparation of town-planning schemes, which requires that alterations in the scheme should be advertised and objections heard, has not been complied with by the
Hendon Rural District Council in the case of Stanmore; and if he will withhold his approval of the revised scheme until the residents who object to the erection of shops in a residential zone are given an opportunity of stating their case to the local authority?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The Clause to which the hon. Member refers is one of the Model Clauses and has no application to schemes in course of preparation. In answer to the last part of the question I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on Thursday last to questions by the hon. Members for Blackpool (Sir Walter de Frece) and Islington East (Mr. Tasker).

Mr. GARDNER: 51.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has promised to make any grant from the Road Fund towards the widening of Church Road, Stanmore; and, if so, whether he will accompany such grant with a proviso that nothing shall be done to spoil the beauties of the village by the erection of shops on the village green?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): My Department has not been consulted regarding the proposed widening of this road, and no application has been made to me for assistance from the Road Fund. Should any such application be made to my Department, I will bear in mind the points raised by the hon. Member but I have no jurisdiction over the type of buildings erected along road frontages.

SCHEME, RENFREWSHIRE.

Mr. JOHNSTON: 56.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the decision of the Housing Committee in the upper ward of Renfrewshire to proceed no further with their housing scheme owing to the difficulty of having the scheme completed by 1st October, 1928; and whether he can give any indication that in such circumstances a period of grace after 1st October, 1928, will be allowed for completion without loss of subsidy?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part this matter will receive the
consideration of the Government but I am not at present in a position to make a statement.

Mr. JOHNSTON: If I can supply the right hon. Gentleman with Press reports which would justify the facts stated in the question, will he reconsider his decision and make some public statement which will reassure this housing committee?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I desire to reassure any housing committee, but I am not in a position to make a statement at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW.

WEST HAM UNION.

Mr. GROVES: 43.
asked the Minister of Health the number of families at present on outdoor relief in the West Ham Poor Law Union and the total number of such families who are to-day in receipt of an allowance for coal, and showing each district separately?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend will make inquiries of the guardians, and will communicate with the hon. Member in due course.

MANCHESTER UNION.

Mr. COMPTON: 48.
asked the Minister of health if he has yet received any reply from the Manchester Board of Guardians to the report submitted to them by his inspector relative to the payment of relief, or if he has been informed that the report has been considered by the board?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir.

Mr. COMPTON: Has the hon. Gentleman no answer to give to the latter part of the question?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir.

Mr. COMPTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman the Minister any power to force boards of guardians to consider the report of the inspector in full, as in this case the board have never yet considered it, although the scales of relief have been reduced?

Sir K. WOOD: I have not seen the replies of my Department in this matter, but I have reason to think that this
report will be considered, and I understand that an inquiry will be made into certain aspects contained in the report.

Mr. COMPTON: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the board, or make representations to the board, that it is desirable in the public interest that the full board should consider this report and not a subcommittee?

Sir K. WOOD: I will consider that point if necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

MILK SUPPLIES, NOTTINGHAM (ADULTERATED SAMPLES).

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: 44.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that in the County of Nottingham, during the year 1924, 43 samples of milk were analysed, of which 97.7 per cent. were adulterated; during the year 1925, 73 samples of which 60.2 per cent. were adulterated; and during the year 1926, 62 samples of which 54.8 per cent. were adulterated; what action, if any, has been taken to bring the attention of the competent authorities to this adulteration of the food of infants; and will he impress upon these authorities that for the sake of the health and welfare of their infant population they should institute a vigorous campaign against these food adulterators by analysing yearly a much larger number of samples?

Sir K. WOOD: According to my right hon. Friend's information, it is the practice of the inspectors in the County of Nottingham to take a large number of samples of milk informally, and to carry out rough sorting tests themselves with a view to ascertaining the places at which adulterated milk is being sold. Formal samples are then taken at those places for submission to the Public Analyst. As the published returns relate only to samples submitted to the Public Analysts, the natural result of this practice is that a very high proportion of the samples recorded in those returns are adulterated samples.

Dr. DAVIES: Is it not a new departure that informal samples should be taken by local authorities, and, if so, is it not also the fact that the reports from all the other authorities in the country show very much less milk adulteration than the County of Nottingham?

Sir K. WOOD: This particular authority has adopted a new method. The answer which I have given to the hon. Gentleman accounts for the situation set forth in this question.

SALE OF FOOD AND DRUGS ACTS (ANALYSES).

Dr. V. DAVIES: 47.
asked the Minister of Health if, in his next Annual Report of the Ministry of Health he will draw attention to the advisability of seeing that analyses, under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, should primarily be for the purpose of detecting adulteration in the common articles of diet amongst the poor, and that, where past experience shows an adulteration of over 5 per cent. of the samples analysed of these articles of diet, it would be of advantage to the public health if a larger number of samples were analysed

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend will consider whether any advice can usefully be given in this matter.

SMALL-POX AND VACCINATION (PRISONERS)

Dr. V. DAVIES: 61.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the usual procedure with unvaccinated prisoners in regard to vaccination in normal times and during the presence of small-pox in the district or prison?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): In normal times no special steps are taken except as regards convicts sentenced to penal servitude, who, unless they present good vaccination marks, are vaccinated before removal to the convict prison. During an outbreak of small-pox in the area in which a prison, whether a local prison or a convict prison, is situated, or in areas from which prisoners are received, it is the practice to vaccinate all prisoners who have not been previously vaccinated within recent years.

Mr. SHEPHERD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the prisoners have any choice in this matter as to whether or not they will be vaccinated?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have never heard any complaints from them.

PREMIUM BONDS.

Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if he will consider the appointment next Session of a Select Committee of this House to inquire and report on the advisability or otherwise of raising money for national purposes by the issue of premium bonds?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not disposed to think that the re-appointment of a Select Committee to examine this question would serve any useful purpose.

COAL INDUSTRY (AMALGAMATIONS).

Mr. E. BROWN: 50.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he will state any details as to the eight amalgamations which have taken place since the passing of the Mining Industry Act, 1926; and where the 70 collieries involved are situated?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): I have been asked to reply. Of the 70 collieries referred to, 43 are in South Wales, 24 in South Yorkshire, two in West Yorkshire, and one in North Wales. But it is impossible within the limits of an answer to a question to give any full account of these amalgamations, and my right hon. and gallant Friend must emphasise again that this list is not exhaustive. A full report will be made to Parliament in due course.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (GENERATING STATION, LITTLE BARFORD).

Sir LEONARD BRASSEY: 52.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the construction of a new generating station at Little Barford, as proposed by the Electricity Commissioners; whether he is aware that it will not be in proximity to any load and that the needs of the area could be better met by the inter-connection of the Peterborough, Luton, and Bedford stations; and whether he will state the present position of the scheme?

Colonel ASHLEY: The present position of this scheme is that the Electricity Commissioners, as the result of a local inquiry, have made an Order authorising
the compulsory acquisition of lands for the purpose of constructing a generating station at Little Barford. This Order has now been submitted to me for confirmation, and before confirming it it will be my duty to consider any objections that may be made in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

Mr. WELLS: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say, if it be found that the needs can be met by local stations, whether he will hold a further inquiry?

Colonel ASHLEY: No, Sir. I will, if necessary, hold an inquiry while the Order is before me for confirmation.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

STEAMSHIP SERVICE, BARRA.

Mr. JOHNSTON: 53.
asked the Secreretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the indignation in the island of Barra over the proposals he has announced for the future of the steamer service to the island; that Barra is not one of the inner isles; that frequently the steamer via Coll and Tiree is unable to face the Minch; that sometimes passengers for Barra have been put ashore at Tobermory and compelled to get a passage home on a trawler; and that the route from Tiree to Barra is the most dangerous in the western seas; and whether he can take steps to ensure that the pre-war direct service from Tobermory to Barra will be resumed?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have received no communication from Barra, but I am aware that some dissatisfaction has been expressed. The present service gives a connection both with Oban and Mallaig, which was desired by the islanders, and the traffic does not warrant separate services to Coll and Tiree and to Barra. I am informed that only on 11 occasions during the last 2½ years has the steamer been unable to cross the Minch. I have no information as to the utilisation of trawlers on any of these occasions. The crossing is undoubtedly exposed, but the service has been well maintained, and it is not apparent that the exclusion of Coll and Tiree from the itinerary would obviate the difficulty which is experienced in stormy weather. In the circumstances I can see no good
reason for an alteration of this service, beyond the arrangements for replacing the present boat to which reference was made in the statement submitted to the House on the 1st instant.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an opportunity of discussing this revised contract before it is finally completed, and is he aware that in the contract as he has announced it, there is to be no reduction of freights on exported goods, and that frequently goods have been allowed to lie rotting on the pier for days together?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I understand that the contract will in due course come before the House.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION, GLASGOW.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 54.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that in the proposed agreement between the Scottish Education Department and the Glasgow authority no provision is made for any new schools in the Gorbals area; that this is the only division so treated; that this is the most thickly populated part of Glasgow; and if he will take steps to have the subject reconsidered?

Sir J. GILMOUR: My reply of 15th November to the hon. Member made it clear that no agreement of the nature which he describes is contemplated, and a reference to the tabular statement of the authority's programme which I gave him last week will show that he is under a misapprehension in supposing that Gorbals is the only division in which no provision is made for new schools. With reference to the latter part of the question, I am aware that the Gorbals area is thickly populated, but I am advised that the school accommodation is sufficient and I see no reason for reconsidering the subject.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the only Parliamentary division in which there is not to be a new school is Gorbals, and is he aware that in his own Parliamentary division three new schools are to be built? Will he take steps to see that the divisions of other hon. Members in this House are at least equally treated with his own?

Sir J. GILMOUR: This is a matter which must be dealt with not on the
question of particular areas, but on the facts as to the necessity for schools. It is not correct to say that the hon. Member's division is the only one which is being so treated.

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is not a fact that in the tabulated statement issued, the only Parliamentary division treated in this way is Gorbals? Is he aware that the new schools proposed to be built are to be built in areas where people are already getting the subsidy for their houses, and that they are to have the further privilege of being the only people who are to get new schools? Is the right hon. Gentleman not going to consider the poor districts where the schools are antiquated?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Yes, Sir. Full consideration is being given to every district upon its merits, and I would remind the hon. Member that in the Calton and the Camlachie districts no provision is being made in addition to that already existing.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am dealing with Parliamentary divisions, and that the Camlachie division is to have a new school, while Gorbals is not to have a new school? Why cannot I get the same treatment for my division that other divisions get?

JUVENILE OFFENDER, GLASGOW (SENTENCE).

Mr. BUCHANAN: 55.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that a boy, Thomas Lennie, residing at 16, Salisbury Street, Glasgow, was at the Glasgow Sheriff Court in August sentenced to six stripes of the birch rod for stealing pigeons, having previously been in similar trouble; that the boy was under the care of the Glasgow Education Authority doctor previously; that he was minus a leg, lost a year before; and that since then he has been removed to Rushill Hospital, due to illness partly caused by the birch; and whether the proper medical examination took place before the punishment was applied?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Thomas Lennie was charged, along with another boy, at Glasgow Sheriff Court on 31st August, 1927, with breaking into three stables and stealing various articles and seven
pigeons. Lennie, who had twice previously been convicted of theft, pled guilty and was sentenced to six stripes of the birch rod. Lennie was medically examined on attending the school clinic in February, 1927, but further medical attention was precluded by his failure to return to the clinic. I am informed that Lennie lost a leg some years ago. Lennie was admitted to Rushill Sanatorium Hospital on the 16th October, and I am satisfied that the suspected illness had no connection with the punishment imposed by the Court in August. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Was this boy medically examined apart from the question of his failure to turn up? Is it not a duty imposed by Act of Parliament that he should be medically examined before they start to apply the birch to a young boy?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have already answered the hon. Member. All the proper steps were taken.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it can be defended that a boy, not 16 years of age, who lost a leg a year ago, should be birched in a Glasgow Court? I beg to give notice that I intend to raise this question at the earliest possible moment.

ARRESTS, SCARRISTAVEG.

Mr. JOHNSTON: 57.
asked the Lord Advocate whether the proceedings against Ewen McLennan and Neil McDonald, of Scarristaveg, Harris, for breach of interdict were taken with the concurrence of the procurator fiscal for the Long Island district of Invernessshire; whether he is aware that these men were arrested and conveyed to Lochmaddy, 50 miles away, when they were ordered to lodge written answers by 5th January and then released; and why they were not ordered to lodge the written answers without the indignity of arrest as common criminals?

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. W. Watson): The facts are as stated in the first two parts of the hon. Member's question, except that the distance between Scarristaveg and Lochmaddy is under 25 miles. With regard to the last part of the question, I would point out that it is the usual practice for the Court
to require the personal presence of the respondent in a petition and complaint for breach of interdict, and that, where a citation to appear is not complied with and no reasonable excuse for non-compliance is tendered, the proper course is to grant warrant to apprehend. I see no reason to suppose that there was any departure from the normal procedure in the present case. I would remind the hon. Member that the concurrence of the procurator fiscal in such proceedings is given in ordinary course, where he is satisfied that there is a prima facie case, and that I have no responsibility for the citation or subsequent proceedings.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in response to a question which I put in this House a week ago, concurrence on the part of the Department officials was denied? In view of these circumstances, can he take no steps to see that the law is operated with some degree of humanity and justice?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I am not aware of any such statement.

Mr. JOHNSTON: In view of the answer given on behalf of the Government, I beg to give notice that I will raise this question on the Adjournment to-night.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: Notice has been given that the matter is to be raised in Debate.

TELEPHONE FACILITIES, NORTH EAST LINCOLNSHIRE.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 58.
asked the Postmaster-General what is being done to increase the number of telephone call boxes in villages and railway stations in North-east Lincolnshire which have none installed; and how many railway stations and villages of over 200 inhabitants are still without these facilities?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to my right hon. Friend's statement in the House on the 31st March last about the development of the telephone system in rural areas generally and to the replies to questions
by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) on the 17th and 28th November about call offices at rural railway stations. As regards the last part of the question, I regret that statistics in the form desired are not available.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Is the Noble Lord aware that there is great dissatisfaction in the country districts owing to the slowness with which the telephone and telegraph services are provided, especially in areas where the people have to go a long distance to obtain the services of a doctor.

Viscount WOLMER: I am aware of that, but it is a question of expense.

SOUTH AFRICA (GOVERNMENT RAILWAY LOCOMOTIVES).

Mr. CONNOLLY: 60.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he is aware that the tender board of the South African Government railways are about to place orders for one million pounds' worth of locomotives, the bulk of the orders to go to German firms, and whether his Department will bring to the notice of the South African Government the superior construction and running powers of British-built engines, with a view to British firms securing a higher proportion of this work?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I am aware that the South African railway authorities have called for and received tenders for locomotives to the value of the amount stated in the question. I have no official information as to where the orders have been placed, but it is reported in the Press that over £500,000 worth have been placed in Germany. The South African Railway Board received tenders from the United Kingdom, and must be well aware of the nature and quality of the work which British locomotive manufacturers would be prepared to supply.

Mr. CONNOLLY: Having regard to the preference which we give to South Africa, does not the hon. Member consider that his Department is entitled to make some representation upon this matter?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I do not see how the British Government can make repre-
sentations to the South African Government on a matter which is entirely their own affair.

STAGE EXECUTION (GRAVESEND THEATRE).

Mr. GARDNER: 62.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a performance has been staged at the Grand Theatre, Gravesend, in the course of which Mr. John Ellis, the former executioner, appears as a hangman, and performs all the processes of pinioning and hanging an actor representing Charles Peace, the notorious criminal, a real gallows being erected on the stage for the purpose; and whether he will make it a condition in the future for the appointment of an executioner that he shall give an undertaking not to engage in a public performance in such a role?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, but executioners are employed by sheriffs. I have no power to impose the condition suggested and, if I had, I do not know how it could be enforced after the executioner retired.

Mr. GARDNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the sheriffs that it is against public policy to have these scenes exhibited? After all Parliament has had a great deal to do with the abolition of public exhibitions of executions.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Cannot this well be left to public opinion and the Press?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member knows my view, which I am sure is the view of the House, that these exhibitions are not seemly.

Mr. R MORRISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the position of public executioner is pensionable? Is he in receipt of a pension?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Nothing of the kind. The public executioner is employed and paid by the sheriffs.

Colonel DAY: May I ask whether the Watch Committee or licensing authority in each town have power to stop these performances?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I must have notice of that question.

INCOME TAX (TRUST FUNDS).

Captain BOURNE: 63.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that His Majesty's inspectors of taxes are demanding from trustees returns for Income Tax purposes of the income arising from trust funds, although under the terms of the trust such income is payable to the beneficiaries of the trust fund; and the authority under which such demands are made?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): In common with other taxpayers, trustees are required, under the general provisions of the Income Tax Acts, to make returns for Income Tax purposes of the income from the trust funds for which they are responsible. They are often asked to furnish particulars showing the distribution of trust income, more especially in order to facilitate the grant of proper Income Tax reliefs to the beneficiaries.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: In view of the Bill now being promoted by the Treasury, can the Financial Secretary undertake to bring forward an Amendment to Section 32 of the Finance Act?

Mr. SAMUEL: I should like to have notice of that question as I am not certain whether the hon. Member means a Section in the Finance Act of 1921 or of what year if not.

ESTABLISHED CHURCHES OF ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 65.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what moneys from public funds have been paid, or will be paid, during the present financial year to the Established Churches of England and Scotland, respectively?

Mr. SAMUEL: There are no payments to the Established Church of England. There were until recently certain charges totalling £20,323 13s. per annum payable under various Acts to the Church of Scotland General Trustees, for particulars of which I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to House of Commons Paper, No. 71 of 1927, pages 50 to 52. These payments have been commuted in the course of the present year under Section (19) of the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Act, 1925.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does that mean that there is no direct payment out of the public Treasury to the Church of England, whereas there is a substantial payment made by the Treasury to the Established Church of Scotland? Is that the meaning of the answer?

Mr. SAMUEL: I do not want to enter into a general argument upon the details of the law. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will look at the exact answer I have given.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the Financial Secretary let that be known in some way for the benefit of Scottish Members of Parliament next time we have an English Church Bill before Parliament?

Mr. HARDIE: Can the hon. Member say what is the difference, in reason, as between a payment to the Church of England and that of Scotland?

Mr. BARR: May I ask whether it was not abundantly proved, when we were discussing the Scottish Bill of 1925, that payments were not made to the Church of England as a parallel to those made to the Church of Scotland?

Mr. SPEAKER: This sounds like a lesson in history.

OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES (PRICE).

Mr. PONSONBY: 66.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the price of the OFFICIAL REPORT of Parliamentary Debates can be reduced in the coming year to its original price of 3d.?

Mr. SAMUEL: I can add nothing to the answer given to the hon. Member on this subject on 31st March, 1925. The reduction proposed would involve a material increase in the considerable loss which already falls on public funds in connection with this publication. In present circumstances, therefore, the proposal cannot be accepted.

Mr. PONSONBY: May I ask whether the hon. Member is aware that there is likely to be a considerable increase in the circulation of the OFFICIAL REPORT when a Labour Government comes into office?

DOG RACING.

Sir FRANK MEYER: (by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether it is his intention to receive a deputation of Members of Parliament to-day on the subject of greyhound racing; and, if so, whether he will permit a report of the proceedings to be made public?

Sir W. JOYNSON - HICKS: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

Sir F. MEYER: May I ask whether, In view of the fact that on this occasion only one point of view is to be expressed, the right hon. Gentleman will undertake not to take any administrative action which will discriminate between those who attend greyhound race meetings and those who attend horse race meetings?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am much obliged by the hon. Member's care for my good behaviour, but at the present time I am not taking any administrative action, and I do not know whether I have power to take administrative action. I am going to hear, in the first place, what my colleagues in this House desire to say to me, and, if the hon. Member desires to bring any further evidence, I shall be only too glad to receive it.

Colonel DAY: Will the Press be present?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House now what is his own point of view on this matter?

POST OFFICE (PROSECUTION, KILBURN).

Mr. DUNNICO: (by Private Notice)asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the case of William Hammond, head postman at Kilburn, who was recently convicted at Marylebone Police Court of stealing a 10s. note; whether it is the fact that by reason of this conviction this man forfeits £390 in cash and a pension of £2 15s. a week; whether this is in accordance with the regulations, and, if so, whether, in view of all the circumstances, the Postmaster General is prepared to exercise some clemency in this case?

Mr. SPEAKER: My attention has been called to the fact that the same question appears on the Order Paper for tomorrow, and, if I had been aware of that fact, I should not have called the hon. Member. He has anticipated a question which has already been put down, and we must leave it until to-morrow for the reply.

Mr. DUNNICO: I was not aware of that fact when I gave notice of my question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Resolved,
That this House do meet To-morrow, at Eleven of the Clock."— [The Prime Minister.]

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 175; Noes, 96.

Division No. 486.]
AYES.
[3.49 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel
Ganzonl, Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Gates, Percy
Penny, Frederick George


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Gault, Lieut-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Apsley, Lord
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Ashley Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Perring, Sir William George


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Goff, Sir Park
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Balniel, Lord
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Raine, Sir Walter


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Hall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. (Dulwich)
Ramsden, E.


Berry, Sir George
Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Betterton, Henry B.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Birchalt, Major J. Dearman
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Haslam, Henry C.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hawke, John Anthony
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Rye, F. G.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Salmon, Major I.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Briscoe, Richard George
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Sandon, Lord


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hills, Major John Waller
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Buchan, John
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Savery, S. S.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Burton, Colonel H. W,
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Shepperson, E. W.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Holt, Captain H. P.
Smithers, Waldron


Campbell, E. T.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Horllck, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hudson, R.S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Iveagh, Countess of
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Christle, J. A.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Clayton, G. C.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Cobb, Sir Cyril
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Cope, Major William
Lamb, J. Q.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Couper, J. B.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Long, Major Eric
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lumley, L. R.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
McLean, Major A.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Wells, S. R.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Dlxey, A. C.
Malone, Major P. B.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Drewe, C.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Margesson, Captain D.
Windsor-Cllve, Lieut.-Colonel George


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Meyer, Sir Frank
Wolmer, Viscount


Ellis, R. G.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge amp; Hyde)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Fairfax, Captain J G.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.



Falle, Sir Bertram G
Murchlson, Sir Kenneth
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fleiden, E. B.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir George


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Hennessy.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Oman, Sir Charles William C.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Ritson, J.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney amp; Shetland)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hardle, George D.
Robinson, W. C.(Yorks,W.R., Elland)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Harris, Percy A.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hayday, Arthur
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hayes, John Henry
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Barr, J.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sitch, Charles H.


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Siesser, Sir Henry H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bromley, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Snell, Harry


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sutton, J. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Compton, Joseph
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Thurtle, Ernest


Connolly, M.
Kirkwood, D.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, W. G.
Lansbury, George
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lawrence, Susan
Varley, Frank B.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lawson, John James
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lindley, F. W.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Day, Colonel Harry
MacLaren, Andrew
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Dennison, R.
Maxton, James
Wellock, Wilfred


Dunnico, H.
Montague, Frederick
Whiteley, W.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wiggins, William Martin


Fenby, T. D
Mosley, Oswald
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gardner, J. P.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Gosling, Harry
Palin, John Henry
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin.,Cent.)
Paling, W.
Windsor, Walter


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wright, W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Groves, T.
Riley, Ben
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. A Barnes.


Question put, and agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill,
Mental Deficiency Bill,
Expiring Laws Continuance Bill,
Sheriff Courts and Legal Officers (Scotland) Bill, without Amendment.
Nursing Homes (Registration) Bill, with an Amendment.
Road Transport Lighting Bill, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — LANDLORD AND TENANT (No. 2) BILL.

order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I beg to move, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
It would perhaps be convenient if I were to make one or two preliminary remarks as to these Lords Amendments. I have to apologise for the number of the Amendments, but the House knows that we finished the Committee stage of the Bill only at the end of July, and that the Report stage was fixed for the first day of the present Session. It was not possible for us to put down any Amendments then, and when the Bill went to another place it had to be polished up and a large number of drafting Amendments made. The great bulk, 90 per cent., of the Amendments made in another place, are purely drafting Amendments which do not alter the Bill in any shape or form.
There are, however, three Amendments which, in fairness to the House, I ought to mention, because they do make an important change in the provisions of the Bill. The first of these is with regard to the tribunal, and relates to Clause 32 in the new Bill and Clause 20 in the old Bill. If the House will look at page 20 of the old Bill, they will see the original proposal, which was a panel of quasi arbitrators to be set up by the reference committee—the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and one or two others—who were to make a panel from which the arbitrator who decided this question could be selected by the parties themselves, or, if the parties differed, the selection could be made by the reference committee. Their Lordships felt that this was taking a very important question out of the jurisdiction of the Law Courts and putting it into the jurisdiction of a non-legal tribunal.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: Hear, hear!

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. D.
Herbert) will, I am sure, be pleased to see that the Lords have made the Amendment which appears on page 10 of the Amendment Paper—leave out Clause 20 and insert New Clause D.

Sir HENRY SLESSER: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that I moved the Amendment in Committee.

Sir GERALD HOHLER: And that I put it down in this House.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: At all events, whoever killed Cock Robin, they all seem to be very pleased. The Amendment, shortly, is that, instead of the tribunal which we propose, the County Court shall be the Court to deal with all these cases, subject, however, to the High Court having the right, as it has in all cases to-day, to transfer a case from the County Court to the High Court (a) if both parties agree that it should be transferred, or (b) if, on the application of either party, the High Court consider it is a case which, by reason of its magnitude or for any other reason, ought to go to the High Court; but in order to minimise as much as possible legal expenses, provision is made that, after a case is technically begun in the County Court, it shall be at once referred, as a matter of course, to one of the referees who is on the panel which we have established in the earlier part of the Bill. That is to say, it will not be necessary, in a purely technical case of this kind, to take it into the County Court, to brief counsel and argue over the whole case, and then for the County Court Judge to say, as he would in 99 cases out of a hundred, "This is a matter I cannot possibly decide, and it must be referred to a technical tribunal."
To prevent that dual hearing, it is proposed that, although commenced in the County Court, a case shall be referred, as a matter of course, to one of these referees on the panel. But—and here I call the attention of my legal friends to what is a concession to them—after the hearing has taken place before the referee, the referee can send it to the County Court where an order can be made by the County Court Judge. That is giving the same powers of appeal as in ordinary County Court cases, in which a matter of law is taken, as a right, to the High Court, thence to the Court of
Appeal, and from there to the House of Lords. That is the first Amendment of any real substance in the Bill. The second Amendment is on the question of contracting out. If hon. Members will look at Clause 8 of the old Bill and Clause 10 of the new Bill—

Sir PHILIP PILDITCH: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the number of the Bill? Because, on application at the Vote Office, I was told that there was no Bill as altered by the Lords in print, and the Bill that was given me is No. 123, which is the Bill as it left this House and went to the Lords.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This is Bill 153. It can only be obtained in the Private Bill Office of the House of Lords, because it is a House of Lords document. Hon. Members will find the Amendment at the bottom of page 6 of the Amendment Paper. The House will remember that, under the Bill as it left this House, all contracts contracting out from the provisions of the Bill were made void. The House of Lords struck that Clause out, and that, of course, in effect knocked the bottom out of the Bill, because it is perfectly impossible to have a Clause contracting out from the provisions of this Bill. Then, on Third Reading, their Lordships, who have a practice which we in this House do not have, put in an Amendment to insert a new contracting out Clause which, I think, is all we want, namely:
This Part of this Act shall apply notwithstanding any contract to the contrary, being a contract made at any time after the thirtieth day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven.
So that all contracts in avoidance of the Act in any document for a lease, agreement of collateral document, made after 30th March this year, that being the date when the Bill was introduced, will be null and void. As the House will understand, it is not to be supposed that there can be a single lease or agreement dated prior to 30th March this year which has got a Clause in it avoiding the provisions of this Bill, because no one could have anticipated them. We have, therefore, got in this Amendment all, I think, that can reasonably be expected.

Mr. D. HERBERT: Will not the lawyers in the Courts have to work longer?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That ought to be a pleasure to my hon. and learned Friends.

Mr. DALTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not going to say anything about the proviso?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The proviso to this Clause is:
Provided that if on the hearing of a claim or application under this Part of this Act it appears to the tribunal that such contract as aforesaid, so far as it deprives any person of any right under this Part of this Act, was made for adequate consideration, the tribunal shall in determining the matter give effect thereto.
That is to say, supposing there is a contract made after the 30th March, 1927, to provide that the provisions of the Act should not apply in consideration of the landlord having paid to the tenant, say, £100, that is a consideration, and the tribunal will have to consider whether it was adequate or not to induce the tenant to give up the rights he has under the provisions of the Act. The House will see that it is only the proviso we have already passed, because under Clause 8 in the Bill as it left this House it will be seen that the contract
shall be void unless the tribunal, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, is of opinion that the contract was reasonable and, in the case of a contract made after the commencement of this Act, that the consideration for the deprivation of the right was adequate.

Mr. VARLEY: The tribunal has now become the County Court.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Instead of the Tribunal under the Bill as it left this House there is now the County Court, with a reference to the same person as in the Bill as it left us, but there will lie an appeal from the Referee to the County Court. The House will see, however, that the condition in reference to the adequacy of this consideration is the same in the two Bills. Why their Lordships altered the actual wording, I do not quite know, but I, myself, am satisfied that their Clause is no more harmful to the tenant than the Clause in the Bill as it left this House. The third main Amendment is with regard to provisions as to premises under the Rent Restrictions Acts. This is an entirely new Clause, Sub-section (1) of which says:
The Tribunal shall not entertain an application under Section three of this Act if at the time of the application the applicant is a person in possession of the premises by virtue of the Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Acts, 1920 to 1925.
That, of course, I am bound to say, does create an entire change in the position. I admit it is a serious change, as it takes out of the provisions of the Bill all those tenants of shop property who come under the provisions of the Rent Restrictions Acts, and who have received notice from their landlords, that is, where a man is a tenant of a shop with a house above it, because other shop property does not come within the provisions of the Rent Restrictions Acts. Where a tenant is under the Rent Restrictions Acts, and is in possession against the will of the landlord—that is what it comes to—the view of the House of Lords is that it is not unfair that he should not be entitled to go to the landlord and say, "I am going to make an improvement on your premises." The landlord quite rightly says, "But I do not want you here at all. You are not here by my wish, but because Parliament passed a certain Rent Restrictions Act, and you are only having to pay £50 a year rent when I could get £70 or £100. It is an added insult, beside an injury to myself, that Parliament should say, in spite of that, that you can make improvements for which I shall have to pay." With regard to goodwill—I am trying to put it from the point of view of the landlord—he says, "It is equally unfair that this man should continue in possession of my property for five or six years piling up a goodwill for which I have got to pay, and all the time he is in possession of my property under an Act of Parliament. I cannot get rid of him, and he is paying less rent than I could get from another tenant if I could get him out." Those are the reasons which have influenced their Lordships. I think I have put them fairly to the House, and it will be for the House to consider them.
Practically the whole of the other Amendments are drafting Amendments. On page 1, of the Lords Amendments, all the Amendments down to that in page 2, line 29 of the Bill are drafting Amendments and the last two Amendments in the page are also drafting Amendments. On page 2 of the Lords Amendments all
are drafting down to that in page 4, line 33 of the Bill.

Mr. HARDIE: Is the Amendment in page 3, line 35 of the Bill, to insert the words "attributable to," regarded as a drafting Amendment?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the hon. Member does not take it from me that these are drafting Amendments I can deal with them as they come before us; but I have gone through them very carefully, and I can assure the House that I am not trying to get any of them through as drafting Amendments when they are not drafting Amendments.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Is the Amendment on page 2, of the Lords Amendments in page 3, line 18 of the Bill, to leave out "one month" and insert "two months," a drafting Amendment?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is consequential to an Amendment made in this House, and I will deal with it in due course. I am only roughly going through these Amendments in order to try to give hon. Members some idea of the Amendments to which it is worth while directing attention. On page 2, of the Lords Amendments all are drafting Amendments down to that in page 4, line 33 of the Bill. The Amendment in page 5, line 9 of the Bill is not drafting, but the two remaining Amendments are drafting. On page 3 of the Lords Amendments the only drafting Amendments are those proposed in page 5, line 30 of the Bill and page 6, line 34 of the Bill. The others I shall deal with. On page 4 of the Lords Amendments the drafting Amendments are those proposed in page 7, line 23 of the Bill and page 7, line 33 of the Bill.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: May I point out that the right hon. Gentleman is indicating the Amendments by the paging of the document containing the Lords Amendments, but the Amendments themselves are subdivided according to the pages of the Bill, and that is causing some confusion.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am dealing with the numbering of the pages of the document which hon. Members have in their possession containing the Lords Amendments. On page 4 of that document the only drafting Amendments are those proposed in page 7, lines 23 and 33 of the Bill, in page 8, line 27,
of the Bill and in page 9, line 40, of the Bill. On page 5 of this document the first two Amendments are not drafting, but all the others down to the Amendment in page 10, line 37, are drafting. The only other drafting Amendments on this page of the document are those proposed in page 11, lines 34 and 35, of the Bill. On page 6 of the document there is only one drafting Amendment which will be found in the middle of the page and is in page 12, line 3, of the Bill. On page 7 of the Lords Amendments from the Amendment in page 13, line 8, of the Bill down to the bottom of the page they are all drafting. On page 8 of the Lords Amendments the first Amendment is drafting and the Amendments in page 16, lines 35 and 37, of the Bill are purely drafting, while the Amendments in page 17, lines 30 and 31, of the Bill, and that in page 18, line 6, of the Bill are drafting. On page 9 of the Lords Amendments all are drafting except the two first and the Amendment in page 19, line 25, of the Bill. The others are all technical and have been suggested by the Ministry of Agriculture. On page 10 of the Lords Amendments there are no drafting Amendments, and on page 11 only the last two are drafting. On page 12 of the Lords Amendments the first four are drafting and also the three Amendments in the middle of the page in page 23, lines 32, 33 and 36 of the Bill. The Amendments in page 24, line 16, of the Bill at the bottom of the page are consequential Amendments. On page 13 of the Lords Amendments the last three are all drafting. I have taken this unusual course, because I think, where there is such a large number of Amendments, the House would like to know those which are of a drafting character.

Sir WILLIAM PERRING: Is the Amendment in page 24, line 19, of the Bill dealing with the date, a drafting Amendment?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, I did not say that it was. That is an Amendment which will have to be discussed. I have tried to put, as shortly as possible, the crucial questions which arise on these Amendments and I now beg to move, that the House proceed to consider them.

Mr. DALTON: We are obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the very clear
resumé which he has given of the principal Amendments now submitted to us. It may appear when we come to consider those Amendments in detail that one or two of them to which the right hon. Gentleman has made no reference will require discussion. I am surprised that it has been found necessary to have such a large number of drafting Amendments. After the prolonged discussions which took place here and in Committee on this Bill one would have thought it unnecessary for their Lordships to put themselves to so much trouble in order to improve our language. However, no doubt, reasons can be advanced for some of the drafting Amendments. I think it will be more convenient if my hon. Friends and I reserve what we have to say until we come to the particular Amendments with which we wish to deal. May I just indicate with regard to the three Amendments which the Home Secretary has singled out that in the first place we are agreeable to the Amendment regarding the tribunal. It was originally proposed by us and therefore we take some pride of paternity in it. In the second place with regard to the contracting-out Amendment we are exceedingly dubious as to whether a very large part of what we intended to give to the tenants has not been whittled away in another place. In the third place with regard to the rent restrictions proposal. we are very strongly opposed to that further whittling away of the protection of the tenants. We shall have something to say upon each of those Amendments when they are submitted to us.

Mr. CRAWFURD: For my part, I cannot in the least consent to the alteration which it is proposed to make in the tribunal. It seems to me a fundamental change in the spirit of the Bill and certainly in the operation of the Bill. Presumably the right hon. Gentleman will go through these Amendments, one by one, and will pause at those which are not purely of a drafting nature.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 1.—(Tenant's right to compensa- tion for improvements.)

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 15, leave out "sent or received" and insert "served on or."

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. HARDIE: May I ask for some explanation of this change? I understand that if the word "served" be used, it means that the notice must be served on the person concerned. In that case, what is going to happen in the case of absentees? That is a point which ought to be made quite clear. In the other case proof that the notice had been sent to the person concerned or received by him would qualify the notice, but it would appear, under this alteration, that the notice would not be properly qualified unless served on the person concerned.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It can be served in various ways. "Served" is a term of art and means that the notice has been served in such a manner as will reasonably satisfy the requirements of the law. The word "sent" has no technical meaning at all. The notice might be sent by anybody and it would be almost impossible to prove that the person had received the notice.

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 11, leave out "the capitalised value of."

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. HARDIE: This seems to be something more than a drafting Amendment.. The Bill at present provides that the sum to be paid as compensation for any improvement shall not exceed the capitalised value of the net addition to the letting value of the holding which may be determined to be the direct result of the improvement. This Amendment will leave out the words "the capitalised value of" and then we shall have the words "the net addition to the letting value of the holding." What are we to understand by that? Is it the value for a month or a year or 10 years? What is the basis of valuation. How is the net addition to the letting value to be determined?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I know these points are very difficult but if the hon. Member looks at the next Amendment which is to leave out the word "letting" he will see that it makes the
provision read "shall not exceed the addition to the value of the holding." That is the actual capital value. That will not involve finding out first what is the net letting value and then capitalising it. We have tried to make the Bill as simple as possible and we say here that the compensation is not to exceed any addition to the value of the holding, whatever that may be.

Mr. HARDIE: That is leaving a great gap and leaving a great deal to the discretion of the tribunal.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think so.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 2, line 24, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 28, leave out "the buildings" and insert "or to make structural alterations in the premises or any part thereof."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Sir W. Joynson-Hicks.]

Mr. DALTON: May we have an explanation of this Amendment?

Mr. CRAWFURD: I also would ask the House to pause at this Amendment. For the benefit of those hon. Members who did not serve on the Committee, may I point out briefly what this Sub-section does? It provides in the present language on the Bill that:
In determining the capitalised value of such net addition, regard shall be had to the purposes for which it is intended that the premises shall be used after the termination of the tenancy, and if it is shown that it is intended to demolish the buildings or to use the premises for a different purpose.
The Amendment proposes to leave out the words "the buildings" and to insert instead the words "or make structural alterations in the premises or any part thereof." That seems to me to open the door to a use of this Sub-section which was not contemplated by the Committee or, I am sure, by the right hon. Gentleman himself. If the excuse that the landlord proposes to make some minute structural alteration to any part of the building, is to be taken as a reason why he should not give compensation then I think this is a fundamental alteration in the Bill.

Sir H. SLESSER: I seem to recollect that we had a discussion on this subject upstairs and it was then pointed out as the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. Crawfurd) has just pointed out, that the words "or any part thereof," if taken in their ordinary natural meaning will extend or may extend to very small alterations. Surely the Government must take the view that even if the words "demolition of the buildings" are too wide, the words "make structural alteration in the premises or any part thereof" are too small. To take one instance, it might be held that they covered a small alteration in a bathroom or in a light party wall. Lest there be any doubt as to the amount of the part that is concerned, we are confronted with the word "any," which seems to cover any kind of alteration whatever. I think the right hon. Gentleman himself was persuaded upstairs that this kind of thing was rather dangerous. I believe he does not suggest that this is a drafting Amendment, and I hope the Government will see to it that we do not accept these words in this form, because they are far too wide and open to very serious objection.

Commander WILLIAMS: I feel in the same position as the hon. and learned Member who has just spoken. It rather seems to me as if you are going very much further and creating a loophole which will tend to make this Bill very much less efficient than when it left Committee. These words are very wide, and will enable a good many things to be done which I do not think will carry out the main purpose of the Bill, and I hope the Government will give us a clear assurance that the Amendment will not weaken the Bill in any substantial respect.

Mr. RYE: If the words "or any part thereof" are left out, it seems to me that there will have to be a structural alteration applying to the whole of the premises, which would obviously be wrong. If the landlord wanted to make a material structural alteration to a considerable part of the premises, he would be debarred by virtue of the suggested alteration as put forward by the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. Crawfurd), on the ground that it should apply to the whole and not to a part. In my judgment, the Amendment of the other House is in order. I hope the Government will stand by it.

Mr. D. HERBERT: I think hon. Members who sat on the Committee which considered this Bill are suffering from too much acquaintance with the Bill in its original form, and are fearing something which it is quite unnecessary to fear, namely, that the tenant is going to be shut out in some way if these words are used. But that is not the case, because, if hon. Members will follow the Amendments proposed to the whole Clause, they will see that what is to happen is that regard is to be had to the effect of such demolition, alteration, or change of user. Therefore, if the alteration is very trifling or only to a very small part, its effect will be practically nil.

Sir H. SLESSER: Does the hon. Member not agree that if the tribunal fail to have regard to even a small alteration, on appeal the matter will be sent back to them, because they have not carried out their statutory obligations?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert) has made the speech which I was thirsting to make. The thing is perfectly clear. If hon. Members will look at the Amendment to this Clause, they will see that if it is intended to demolish or make a structural alteration to the premises or any part of them, that is, if it is proposed to alter, say, a tap in the bathroom, then, in ascertaining the value, the tribunal shall have regard to the effect of such alteration on the additional value attributable to the improvement. That is clear. It is not a Lords Amendment technically, but an Amendment made by ourselves in order to make it clear what the word "demolition" means. Various suggestions were made by some of my hon. Friends, one of which was that after the word "demolition" we should have the word "reconstruction," and then they tried "structural alteration." I think I have really got at the root of the thing now by giving the tribunal the right and the duty to take into consideration the value of any structural alteration, however small it may be, upon the value of the improvement.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 2, line 33, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 40, leave out "the buildings," and insert "or alter."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "'That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Sir W. Joynson-Hicks.]

Sir W. PERRING: I want to know whether this alteration is not a little more drastic than those which have just been passed. The effect of it will be that if there is an alteration, no compensation will be payable or a reduction of compensation will take place. Does it mean a slight alteration? I think it is a slightly different interpretation in this Sub-section from that given in the previous Sub-section.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think so. In the Sub-section above, we have decided that the tribunal shall take into consideration any structural alteration and what the effect of it will be on the value of the improvement, which I think is right, and then we come to this Sub-section, and in order to make it agree with Amendments already passed, we make it a little shorter.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 4, line 8, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 3.—(Landlord's right to object.)

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 33, at the end, insert new Sub-section:
(2) is considering whether the improvement is reasonable and suitable to the character of the holding the tribunal shall have regard to any evidence brought before it by the landlord or any superior landlord (but not any other person) that the improvement is calculated to injure the amenity or convenience of the neighbourhood.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is not a drafting Amendment, but an Amendment that ought to be introducerd in order to carry out an undertaking which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Withers). On the Report stage, he and several of my colleagues desired to get brought before the tribunal, in any question of alteration, the question of altering the amenities of the district. They desired that the tribunal should
take into consideration the amenities of the surrounding country. I thought that that was importing into this Bill conditions which really belonged to town planning, and that it was not right to make this tribunal cognisant of such conditions. After a good deal of thought, however, we have evolved the terms of this Amendment, which provides that in considering whether an improvement is reasonable and suitable to the character of the holding, the tribunal shall have regard to any evidence brought before it by the landlord or any superior landlord that the improvement is calculated to injure the amenity of the neighbourhood.
Under the Bill, no one is entitled to say that an improvement would be an injury to the amenities of the whole of the neighbourhood, but it is within the ambit of the Bill, I think, that we should give the landlord the right to say to the tribunal, "If you will allow my tenant to turn his very nice shop into a horrible petrol station, it will be an injury to the amenities of the neighbourhood." It gives my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University something of what he asked, but I cannot give him all. I think it is reasonable that a landlord should be entitled to put those views before the tribunal, but it would be for the tribunal to say whether or not they were influenced by the evidence so put before them.

Mr. HARDIE: It is all very well to say that the landlord shall have this power, but there are other people as well as the landlord concerned in the amenities of a neighbourhood, and I would ask that the local authorities and any other interests should be brought in as well as the landlords. Why should it be left in the hands of the landlords to say what should be done in a district? A local authority may be spending money on certain improvements by using the rates, and yet we leave power in the hands only of a landlord to say whether or not a thing is an amenity to the district. It should not be left in the hands of one man. Surely an amenity means a concensus of opinion as to what is good or bad in a community, and since an amenity can only be something that applies to the whole of the community, the community ought to be consulted, and the power ought to be given to the community, through its local
authority, to determine, with the landlord, it may be, whether an amenity will be injured or otherwise. I wish to move, after the word "landlord," to insert the words "or local authority."

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot accept that Amendment. I have already put the Question "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. CRAWFURD: I think the Home Secretary has lost a little of his usual clarity of mind over this Amendment. I am only too delighted to do anything to give a little sop to the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Withers), but why should we give this power to the landlord or superior landlord specifically? Has not the right hon. Gentleman in his mind that if a tenant wishes to make a certain improvement which does not accord with the amenities of the neighbourhood, he may reduce the value of the adjoining property of the landlord? He may injure the landlord, but the property on one side may belong to that landlord and on the other side to another landlord, and surely, if you are going to give a right to one person whose amenities may be injured by a bad alteration, you must give, logically and in justice, to any other person whose amenities are equally injured the same right to appeal against the alteration. I can quite understand the logic of the case which says that there are to be no appeals or the logic of the case which says that not only the local authority, but any other party that says it is injured shall appeal, but to select one person only is not logical.

Major HILLS: I think the Amendment ought to be dropped altogether. I agree with the last speaker. There may be an alteration in a house in a beautiful street, and the landlord may agree to it, but surely the man who owns the house is not alone affected; people who live in the neighbourhood are also affected. If we insert a Clause of this sort, I think it ought to be wider. There is one further point which I want to ask. I suppose it is quite clear that the tenant can bring rebutting evidence? Take the case of a house let as a dwelling-house. The tenant wants to put in a shop front, but the landlord says that the improvement is not reasonable, because of the
character of the neighbourhood. In some cases it may be, and in some cases it may not, and I am not sure, on the reading of this Amendment, whether the tribunal could consider any other evidence except that of the landlord to the effect that the improvement was unreasonable or unsuitable. I may be wrong about that, but I feel very clearly that the landlord is not the only person affected, and I am not sure but that the best plan would be to drop the Amendment altogether.

Sir G. HOHLER: I support the Amendment. The suggested Amendment to the Amendment is based on grounds which I should have thought were wholly outside this Bill. I did not know that we were dealing with anybody except the landlord and the tenant, but now it is suggested that the public authority and the adjoining landlords should be brought in. The public authorities have their rights at law now, and they have town planning. The adjoining owners have their rights, too. For instance, if I deprive the adjoining owner of ancient lights or pure atmosphere, he has his rights at law against me. What does this Amendment propose? That the landlord or his predecessor in title are the only people to be heard on this question. Is not that right? What concern has anybody else? I can do anything I like with my property, so long as I do not infringe the public law and the rights of private individuals. Even now, this proposal is an immense advance on anything that exists, for it enables something to be done against the landlord's will or the superior landlord's will, and why should any third person or the local authority come in and give evidence? I think this provision is right, and, if you look at the remainder of Sub-section (1) of this Clause, you will see that it will reduce the expense of these inquiries, because the tribunal, in considering the proposed alteration, is to have regard to the question whether it will affect the amenities or damage other property of the owner. In these circumstances, as the tribunal may do that over the head of the landlord or superior landlord, the landlord or superior landlord should be heard. I am entirely in favour of the Amendment. I am putting myself in the position of a superior landlord. [Laughter]. Well, and a very nice position,
too! Supposing my immediate tenant says he is going to get a premium from his sub-lessee for allowing him to erect a petrol station or a fried fish shop, is not it right that the superior landlord should step in and object?

Mr. GARDNER: Many claims have been made in Parliament for landlords as an institution, but this one, I think, is the least offensive. If it were true that landlords considered amenities it would be another question. But I am mainly opposed to the Amendment on the ground that I understand the tribunal is, to be a committee to decide the issues between landlord and tenant. If you refer to the panel of referees, you will find that they are going to be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, and the President of the Law Society. I do not know what qualifications these gentlemen have to appoint a tribunal to determine what are the amenities of a district. If it were to be referred to a Minister of Arts or to a Fine Arts Commission I could understand it, but these gentlemen are being appointed to decide on judicial issues. There is nothing that I desire more than that the question of the alteration of property should be the subject of public approval, but at the same time I do not know any tribunal less fitted to undertake the duty than the tribunal under this Act.

Mr. GATES: I desire to ask the House to support this Clause. In Committee I was responsible, originally, for an Amendment somewhat on these lines, but it was on broader lines and it was on that ground opposed by the Home Secretary. When it came to the Report stage, my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Withers) took the matter up again. I am very sorry he is not here, because he is unwell. The suggestion was originally taken up at the instance of substantial associations which are interested in maintaining what I might call nice eligible properties on the outskirts of London and other towns, and they were afraid that the amenities of their residential property might be very much damnified by the erection of some unseemly or unsightly improvement to business premises. The Home Secretary has mentioned petrol stations, and there were other suggestions which occurred to these
people, and they were very much afraid that their property might be damnified by such improvements. The Clause that was accepted by the House of Lords meets to a considerable extent the views of these people. May I point out to the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) that although it is true that it says that the tribunal shall have regard to any evidence brought by the landlord, the landlord would necessarily take that evidence from people in the neighbourhood who would think that they would be disturbed by the proposed improvement.

Mr. MacLAREN: I am beginning to suspect the integrity of the hon. and learned Member for Gillingham (Sir G. Hohler), for in the Committee stage he said that he was not in favour of the lawyers' side of the question, but he is now taking the line that local authorities and adjoining landlords can have recourse to Acts of Parliament.

Sir G. HOHLER: I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will not accept these statements as accurate.

Mr. MacLAREN: I was going to say that perhaps there might be a way out. The Home Secretary will be anxious to hold on to as many words of this Amendment as he can, but I do not see how he can deprive a local authority under the Amendment, because a local authority might be a superior landlord. Surely a borough surveyor of a local authority is the best person to consult about the amenities of the neighbourhood. As a way out of the difficulty, might I suggest that the parenthesis which appears in the Amendment might be dropped out. If that be not done, and if it be not accepted that the local authority has a right to intervene as a superior landlord, there is nothing for it but to oppose the Amendment as it stands.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: This proposal is in the interests of the landlords in the residential areas. There is a number of residential areas served by traders, and there are certain people in those areas who desire to be served with goods. There is ample power already provided in statute law for dealing with this question. We have frequently to deal with local authorities under the Town Planning Act, and the point which is
submitted by the supporters of the Amendment could be met by the local authorities by having the particular areas scheduled under that Act. There has been no case submitted beyond the case of the landlord, and traders have already quite sufficient troubles to put up with in meeting the requirements of the Town Planning Act, in regard to the preservation of the amenities of neighbourhoods.

Sir P. PILDITCH: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary is particularly desirous of agreeing with the Lords in this Amendment; but, if he is not, I see no reason why we should not disagree with it, because I look upon it as somewhat illogical and inconsequent. What has amenity or convenience to do with whether a specific improvement is reasonable or suitable? Having regard to the one desire that this Bill should be made as simple as possible—it is not particularly simple, and it cannot be made simple, especially with the other changes which are to be proposed later on—I should recommend my right hon. Friend, unless he thinks it would cause delay, not to accept the Amendment.

Mr. BARR: I wish to refer to two things which were dealt with by the hon. and learned Member for Gillingham (Sir G. Hohler). I think his criticism of the local authorities was irrelevant, because I understood, by the Speaker's ruling, that that subject was not before us. He said that the landlord would simply be a collector of evidence in this case; but I do not see how he could collect evidence without considerable bias. He also said that there were the two parties, the landlord and the tenant; but, if it be right that the landlord in his interest should collect evidence, why should not the tenant also collect evidence? Yet the tenant is expressly ruled out here. I think, even on the principle laid down that there are only those two parties in the case, that it is altogether biased and one-sided. Therefore, I support the proposal that we disagree with the Amendment.

Mr. WITHERS: I understand that these words were inserted to meet the wishes of the Home Secretary, because he said that, if we did not have some limitation of this kind, outside people
like the Automobile Club and others would want to give evidence before the tribunals to the effect that their members were very much prejudiced because some beautiful old building in some picturesque village had been dealt with in a horrible and barbarous manner, and that they were entitled to bring evidence. I should have liked this Amendment to have been very much wider; but there has been a compromise reached in another place, and I hope that the House, in the interests of everybody and to preserve the amenities of neighbourhoods, will allow this to go through.

Mr. D. HERBERT: I should like to add a word in support of this Amendment. The hon. Member for the Spelthorne Division (Sir P. Pilditch) seems to have misunderstood or not to have realised what we are doing here and what is the effect of this Clause. The whole spirit of this Act is that it is taking away certain rights from the landlords in certain circumstances, never mind whether rightly or wrongly. This Clause is assuming that in a case heard before a tribunal, to which the parties are the landlord on the one side and the tenant on the other, and nobody else whatever, it is surely reasonable, if he happens to be a good landlord who wishes to preserve the amenities of the neighbourhood, that he should be allowed to bring evidence on that subject. That is all it means. Surely this is in the interests of everybody.

Mr. E. BROWN: While we all desire to maintain the amenities of neighbourhoods, it does not seem to me that this is the place in which to do it. This Clause seems to bring complications into the Measure, which is already complicated enough. It does not seem to be drafted fairly between the parties concerned. There are other persons who would necessarily be interested in the matter, and who ought to be allowed to state their case as to what was or what was not an amenity. It seems to me, therefore, that the words proposed ought to be of wider scope or that they should not be here. It is not wholly true, as the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert) has said, that this Bill takes rights away from the landlords. It seeks rather to adjust rights between landlords and tenants, which is a very different thing,
and it seems to me that the proposed Clause will not add to the smooth working of the Bill.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I make a suggestion to the House? This is an Amendment which I had put down and which the Lords passed in order to meet certain views which were expressed to me. It goes as far in the direction of pleasing the town planning people as I could go, because this Bill is one which deals only with landlords and tenants, and I cannot let anybody else appear before the tribunal except landlords and tenants. This does give the landlord power to put the tribunal in possession of his views and the views of any witnesses he chooses to call regarding the amenities of the neighbourhood. I will make this suggestion to the House. I do not want to force any Amendments through the House, and I shall be quite prepared if the House will now come to a decision to leave the question to the free vote of the House. If the House on either side feels that this Clause is undesirable, it is not of the essence of the Bill, and I shall be quite willing that the House shall give a free vote.

Mr. RYE: The landlord may not desire to make any alteration in his property which would affect the amenities of the neighbourhood, and in these circumstances it would be only fair that he should have an opportunity of going before the tribunal and urging that the alterations in his property would be detrimental to an old building, say to an old church next door. If a landlord who, but for this Act, would of himself never have agreed to an alteration of the kind, it would be only fair to let him go before the tribunal, and I think this Amendment ought to be made.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: May I appeal to those who are opposing this new Clause to withdraw their opposition, because it is only making a mountain out of a molehill? As one who has proved, during the progress of this Bill, that he has the interests of the tenants at heart, I hope we will not waste time on this proposal. I do not think any reasonable tenant will object to it.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 161; Noes, 88.

Division No. 487.]
AYES.
[5.13 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Dlxey, A. C.
Hudson. R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Drewe, C.
Harst, Gerald B.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Eden, Captain Anthony
Insklp, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Balniel, Lord
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Iveagh, Countess of


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Ellis, R. G.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Berry, Sir George
Fairlax, Captain J. G.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.


Betterton, Henry B.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Blundell, F. N.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Lamb, J. Q.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Fleiden, E. B.
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Fraser, Captain Ian
Long, Major Eric


Brittain, Sir Harry
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gates, Percy
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Buchan, John
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Lumley, L. R.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lynn, Sir R. J.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Goff, Sir Park
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
McLean, Major A.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Campbell, E. T.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Carver, Major W. H.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Malone, Major P. B.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Harrison, G. J. C.
Margesson, Captain D.


Christle, J. A.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Clayton, G. C.
Haslam, Henry C.
Merriman, F. B.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hawke, John Anthony
Meyer, Sir Frank


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Cope, Major William
Henderson,Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Couper, J. B.
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
Murchison, Sir Kenneth


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Crookshank,Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Dalkelth, Earl of
Holt, Captain H. P.
Penny, Frederick George


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Sandeman, N.Stewart
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Warner, Brigadler-General W. W.


Perring, Sir William George
Sandon, Lord
Warrender, Sir Victor


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Savery, S. S.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carllsie)


Pllditch, Sir Philip
Smithers, Waldron
Wayland, Sir William A.


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwell, Northern)


Price, Major C. W. M.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G, F.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Ramsden, E.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Remer, J. R.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Rentoul, G. S.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Stuart, Crichton, Lord C.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge amp; Hyde)


Rice, Sir Frederick
Tasker, R. Inigo
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Ruggles-Brlse, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of



Rye, F. G.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Salmon, Major I.
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough
Mr. Dennis Herbert and Mr. Withers


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff, Cannock)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Groves, T.
Ritson, J.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Scurr, John


Barnes, A.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney amp; Shetland)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Barr, J.
Hardle, George D.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Batey, Joseph
Harris, Percy A.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Calthness)


Bondfield, Margaret
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Sitch, Charles H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hayes, John Henry
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Bromley, J.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Snell, Harry


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hills, Major John Waller
Stephen, Campbell


Buchanan, G.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Sutton, J. E.


Charleton, H. C.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cluse, W. S.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Thurtle, Ernest


Compton, Joseph
Kennedy, T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Connolly, M.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M
Varley, Frank B.


Cove, W. G.
Kirkwood, D.
Viant, S. P.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Lawrence, Susan
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dalton, Hugh
Lawson, John James
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lindley, F. W.
Wellock, Wilfred


Day, Colonel Harry
Lowth, T.
Wiggins, William Martin


Dennison, R.
MacLaren, Andrew
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Dunnico, H.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Windsor, Walter


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
March, S.
Wrignt, W.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Maxton, James
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Montague, Frederick



Fenby, T. D.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gardner, J. P.
Naylor, T. E.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. B. Smith.


Gosling, Harry
Palin, John Henry



Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Ponsonby, Arthur



Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 9, at the end, insert new paragraph
(c) for securing any rights of the public over the foreshore or bed of the sea.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, "That this House does agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
By this Amendment the Board of Trade reserves its rights over the foreshore so that nothing may be done to interfere with navigation rights.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 5, line 14, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 23, leave out "suspend the execution of" and insert "defer making."

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is not a drafting Amendment. When we were discussing this question on Report, we were faced with the possibility that a tenant might get an order, or leave to make an improvement, and afterwards the landlord might oppose the order. In such a case the tenant might win his case before the tribunal and get an order for costs. Under these circumstances it occurred to some of us that it might be possible for an ingenious tenant, having got his order and his costs, to decide that he would not go on with the improvement at all, and that might inflict a great hardship on the landlord. To meet that difficulty the Lords Amendment proposes to leave out the words "suspend the execution of" and to in-
sert the words "defer making." The effect of this is that the order may be suspended until such time as the improvement has been made. It simply gives power to the tribunal to defer the order for costs until the improvement has actually been made.

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 25, at the end, insert new Sub-section:
(5) Where a tenant has executed an improvement of which he has served notice in accordance with this Section and with respect to which either no notice of objection has been served by the landlord or a certificate that it is a proper improvement has been obtained from the tribunal, the tenant may require the landlord to furnish to him a certificate that the improvement has been duly executed; and if the landlord refuses or fails within one month after the service of the requisition to do so, the tenant may apply to the tribunal who, if satisfied that the improvement has been duly executed, shall give a certificate to that effect.
Where the landlord furnishes such a certificate, the tenant shall be liable to pay any reasonable expenses incurred for the purpose by the landlord, and if any question arises as to the reasonableness of such expenses, it shall be determined by the tribunal.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a new Sub-section which, I think, will be of some value where an improvement has been made under a lease which may not come to an end until 20 years have elapsed. At the end of that time there might be difficulty in the tenant proving that the improvement for which he claims compensation was the one agreed to by the landlord or the one which was authorised by the tribunal. Accordingly it is provided, under this Amendment, that when the improvement takes place the tenant may secure either from his landlord or from the tribunal a certificate that the improvement has been duly executed. Consequently when the tenant comes to make his claim for the improvement, he would have a certificate showing that the improvement was an authorised one.

Subsequent Lords Amendment to page 6, line 34, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 4.—(Compensation for goodwill.)

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 38, after the ward "elsewhere," insert:
and may make it a condition of its award that the tenant shall undertake not to carry on the trade or business within such distance of the premises as may be specified in the award.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is not a drafting Amendment. It was suggested in this House that when the tenant got an award for goodwill he might or might not make arrangements to carry on the same business in the next door premises. The landlord might let the old premises to a new tenant carrying on the same business as the late tenant, and if he had paid the tenant for the goodwill it would obviously be very unfair for the tenant to start next door in the same business. Therefore, it is proposed in this Amendment to make it a condition of the award that the tenant shall undertake not to carry on the business within such distance of the premises as may be specified in the award. Supposing the tenant says, "I will agree not to carry on within half a mile of the premises." Under those circumstances the tribunal would include that condition. Supposing a tenant received from the landlord £1,000 for the goodwill on condition that he did not start a rival business within half a mile of the old premises. I think that would be a fair condition to insert in the award. If the tenant says, "I will agree not to carry on my old business within ten miles," that would be all right. If on the other hand the tenant would only agree not to carry on his business within a hundred yards or even next door, then the tribunal would give him less compensation because he might be a rival to the new tenant. For these reasons, I think the Amendment is quite a fair one.

Sir H. SLESSER: One of my difficulties about this Amendment is in regard to its working. I do not think it has been sufficiently noticed that, by the operation of Clause 20 as amended, which we are soon to discuss, the tribunal is to be the County Court, and I suggest, merely for the guidance of the right hon. Gentleman, and in order that the Bill may be intelligible, that the ward "award" is
no longer appropriate. Strictly speak-
ing, there will be on award at all; there will be a judgment. It is true that, under Clause 20 as amended, the tribunal may refer a matter for report to the Reference Committee, but the actual adjudicating body will be the County Court or the High Court, as the case may be. We are not dealing here with anything in the nature of an arbitration or statutory decision, but with the decision of a Court, and, therefore, I think the word "award" should be altered and the word "judgment" substituted for it.
Another difficulty that troubles me is, again, not a question of principle, but rather of appropriate language. It occurs to me that a difficulty may arise if the undertaking entered into by the tenant is not enforceable at common law by reason of its being unreasonably in restraint of trade. I do not know how far that point has been considered. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, certain undertakings not to practise a profession or business within a certain area are permissible in law if they are reasonably necessary for the protection of those making the covenant, but it may be that a particular undertaking not to carry on a particular business, being a collateral undertaking, is not itself a statutory undertaking; the tribunal makes it a condition of its judgment that the tenant shall enter into an undertaking, and then the question may be whether the undertaking so entered into is or is not unreasonable or incapable of enforcement at common law by reason of its being in restraint of trade. This last point, I quite agree, one might risk, but I am certainly satisfied in regard to the first point, that the word "award" is not the appropriate word.

Sir P. PILDITCH: I think that the hon. and learned Member for South East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) is quite right, but I think that he will find, and that the Home Secretary will find, that we shall have to go further in altering the wording, not only of this Amendment, but also of the Bill itself. If the Home Secretary will look at Sub-section (I, d) of Clause 4, he will find that is says:
The tribunal shall, in determining the amount of compensation for goodwill, have regard to"—
and so on; while this Amendment which has been made in another place says that the tribunal:
may make it a condition of its award"—
and so on. That, obviously, is wrong.

Mr. D. HERBERT: No!

Sir P. PILDITCH: I think we shall see in a moment that it is. If Clause 20 be altered as suggested, this decision may be either a judgment of the Court or, not an award, but a report of the referee. Under the new Clause 20, it is not contemplated that the referee shall be done away with. He has to hold his inquiry, hear witnesses, and make a report, and, if Clause 20 be altered as suggested, I think it will be necessary, in Sub-section (I, d) of Clause 4, after the word "tribunal," to add the words "or referee"; and then, in the Amendment which we are now considering, the words "judgment or report" will have to be inserted instead of the word "award."

Mr. HERBERT: No!

Sir P. PILDITCH: Surely, the referee is entitled to hear evidence and bring his report to the Court, and unless one of the parties disagrees with that report, it will become the judgment of the Court. I do not know by what steps the wording can be reconsidered, but I think it will have to be on the lines I have suggested.

Mr. WITHERS: With regard to the second point raised by the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser), I do not think there is really any substance in it. This will be an undertaking given to the County Court, and not an undertaking as between the parties, and, therefore, its enforcement will not be at common law at all, but by proceedings for contempt of Court.

Mr. D. HERBERT: I think the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) is unnecessarily troubled over the word "award." Surely, a Court can award compensation. At any rate, if there be anything very serious in this point, the Bill will have to be revised in a great many other places where it is very much more important, if it has any importance at all. Sub-section (1, a) of Clause 4 refers to
the sum to be awarded as compensation.
The Bill deals altogether with an award of compensation, and, so far as I know, there is no reason why any award of compensation should not be made by a County Court, which, already, to the best of my knowledge and belief, makes awards under several Acts of Parliament.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I really think the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) is unnecessarily alarmed. If he will look at Clause 20 of the Bill, he will find that the tribunal is the County Court, that is to say, although the County Court will issue a judgment, we are giving it another name.

Sir H. SLESSER: That is also the High Court.

Sir W. JOYNSON-RICKS: Either the High Court or the County Court will be the tribunal for the purposes of this Measure, and that tribunal will make awards exactly as a County Court, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, makes awards. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will find, if he looks at that Act, that the word "award" is used in it. This Clause has been very carefully scrutinised by the Lord Chancellor and his legal advisers, and I think it may be taken that the word "award" relates to the decision of the tribunal. The referee merely reports to the tribunal; he does not make an award. The County Court is the tribunal. The referee sits as a referee and reports to the tribunal What he considers to be the right sum, and the tribunal then awards the sum to the tenant. I really think the matter is quite clear.

Sir H. SLESSER: I do not want to press the point. I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong, but I do not want to delay the House, as the point is not of very serious moment.

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 40, at the end, insert new paragraph:
(e) where the landlord proves that the value of the goodwill has been created or increased owing to restrictions imposed by the landlord, whether by agreement with the tenant or not, upon the letting for a competitive trade or business of other pre-
mises in the neighbourhood owned by or under the control of the landlord, the tribunal shall have regard thereto and may refuse the application for compensation or may award a reduced amount of compensation.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a new point. Where a landlord proves to the tribunal that the increased goodwill is due largely or entirely to the restriction by the landlord—to take the old case of the fruiterer's shop—of the carrying on of the trade of a fruiterer to one shop only in a long line of tenancies, as the landlord, in that case, has prevented anyone else from competing with the tenant in his business, it is considered that part of the goodwill created in the shop in question is created by the very fact of the landlord having kept everyone else in the business off the carpet, so to speak. This Amendment provides that in that case the tribunal may say, either that no compensation is due at all, because the goodwill is entirely due to this action of the landlord, or that the compensation may be reduced by such-and-such a sum, since the landlord has prevented any rival from coming and eating into the business of the tenant.

Mr. HARDIE: This is getting back to one of the real centres of fighting on this Bill, and, looking at the Amendment as it is drafted, one might almost accuse the hon. and learned Member for Gillingham (Sir G. Hohler) of having had a hand in it. It has been admitted in some way, somewhere, but not in this Bill, that there is something, which we cannot define at all, called goodwill, and we now see that, since it is likely to be something that will come to the tenant, a move is being made whereby the landlord may adopt methods to get whatever there may be to come in goodwill. The landlord wants to claim in contradistinction to the tenant who, by his diligence and industry, has improved his business and has something called goodwill as the result of his industry. The landlord also claims the goodwill, but, if he had let in, say, half a dozen fruiterers instead of one, how much goodwill would he have then? The goodwill would be one-sixth, but here we have the landlord coming in and saying that his is a full claim, because he has
not allowed other tradesmen to come in and compete.
This matter is not only serious from that point of view, but from another point of view, namely, that the community is going to be bled by high prices. If the landlord is going to combine with the tenant of a shop in order to keep out competitive shops, that is going to increase the price of the goods to the people who deal at those shops. This contention that the landlord is entitled to goodwill on the ground that he has saved the neighbourhood from competition is against every tenet held by hon. Gentlemen opposite, because they say that competition is the life of trade. Why should they compensate a man and give him what he claims as goodwill because he has taken away the whole foundation of the Tory principle, namely, competition? Where is the logic of the Tory party in bringing forward a provision like this? It means that the landlord will say to the tenant that, as he has not let in another tradesman in the same business, he is going to increase the rent of the shop, and, when he has increased the rent, he will say, on the tenant leaving, that that goodwill is going to be his because he has created the business by not allowing any competition with the tenant. Thus he gets it both ways; firstly, by making the poor deluded tenant—if there be such—think that he is going to get something for nothing, he takes it in rent, and then, under this Measure, he will get it again, because, having kept out competition, he has the right to the goodwill if there be any.
It is most unfair that this question should comes up between tenant and landlord. If the community creates a value, it ought to go back to the community, and in this case the value is created by the community—by the number of people who buy at the shop. It is true that the man who keeps his shop window clean and tidy will get more trade than the man who has his window full of bluebottles, but that is not goodwill; it is sanitation. Why should the man who follows the ordinary methods of cleanliness and sanitation claim to be superior? God does not give us all the same sort of brains. [Interruption.] I am sorry for the other side. You may have one man who has not a sharp enough brain to get rid of bluebottles from his shop
window, but that does not give the other man the right to claim goodwill. In this case, the goodwill belongs to the community, and I hope that this Amendment will not be agreed to. Having made the point that this is a counter-claim by the landlord on something which has always been held to belong to the tenant, there is no reason now why the landlord should be brought in in order to use a subversive inducement, because that is what it means. Here is a community which could have better shops if competition were allowed, and yet we are going to agree to a Clause to prevent competition. It is leaving far too much in the hands of one man.

Sir P. PILDITCH: There are, no doubt, some cases of the kind the hon. Member refers to where it is no disadvantage to a tenant to have a number of persons carrying on the same trade. There are markets of all kinds where it is some advantage to a tenant to be amongst people of the same trade, because people are in the habit of going there. But there are many cases where that does not apply. For instance, in one or two cases I know where a particular class of trade is permitted to be carried on at one of a number of shops that trade is barred for the rest of the shops because it is of such a special character that the introduction of another business of the same kind close to it would very much reduce the value of the goodwill. In circumstances like that, it would only be reasonable that this Amendment should be carried. The landlord has concentrated on one set of business premises a monopoly of carrying on a certain business there free from competition, and it would be unfair that he should be debarred from drawing attention to the fact before the tribunal in reference to the amount to be awarded in respect of goodwill. It seems to me this is only a reasonable Amendment. It would not apply at all to cases of markets where there is an advantage in two or three people of the same trade carrying on business together, but it would apply in cases where a man was carrying on a special trade and, in consequence, the actual amount of the goodwill would be very much increased.

Sir W. PERRING: I want to place on record my opinion that this is an entirely unnecessary paragraph. It is further
overloading the Bill and it is really useless. We do not pass laws for exceptional cases. We have to deal with things in general, and the conditions prevailing today in the distributive trade are such that we do not want restrictions. I believe in the old, individualistic principle of competition, and I know the soul of business is competition. Where you can get the element of competition into a district it attracts business and benefits the trader, and to suggest that one man should have a restricted right to a certain area is suggesting an impossibility. One landlord may control a terrace of six or a dozen shops, but what about the opposite side of the road? There is another very important factor in the distributive trades which must be taken into account when you come to assess compensation. I know it will not influence the compensation altogether, but to-day, tenants are spending sometimes six and eight times as much in advertising as they spend in rent, and the landlord says, "Because I restricted this trade to you in my terrace of shops, I have made your business and you are not entitled to compensation."
But this Clause has another nasty factor in it. It says, "Whether in agreement with the tenant or not," and although there may be no restrictive covenant in the lease as regards the restriction of the trade of the applicant or his neighbours, the landlord will be able to say, "I did not put any restriction into your lease but nevertheless I restricted your neighbours, although the tenant did not desire it, and by reason of this restriction you are not entitled to compensation." That is introducing a factor that is in conflict with the principle of the Bill. The Bill lays it down that the landlord is to pay for something which the tenant has created and which he may walk off with. The tenant has to prove that right up to the hilt every time, and it is surrounded with safeguards for the landlord which will in many cases, prevent him proving it. To suggest that the landlord may come into Court and prove—he cannot prove it, but it introduces into the Bill an element which may lead to litigation, prolong cases and increase costs. The Government have all along said it is their chief desire to make these compensation claims as cheap as possible. This is going to increase the cost. We had evidence 10 minutes ago
how lawyers differ and argue, and we shall have lawyers and experts arguing for weeks, months and years if they get the opportunity to show that the landlord has made the goodwill of the tenant. The tenant does not want these restrictions. He wants a fair field and no favour and he does not mind competition—that is the enterprising tenant. We are only dealing with him, because un-enterprising people will never improve anything and will never be entitled to compensation. This is an unnecessary Clause. It is only aggravating the claim. I know it is the last hour and there is not much hope of getting what we should like, but some day we may be able to prove that we are prophets in our generation and that the Government have put in a Clause which is not in the interests of either party but has only made trouble for those who have spent their money in justifying a legitimate claim.

Mr. MacLAREN: Since this Bill was introduced, I have been insisting on the absence of definition or of any guiding principle on this matter of goodwill. I go so far as to challenge the lawyers on either side of the House to attempt anything in the nature of a definition. I was extremely interested in the last phrase that fell from the mouth of the Home Secretary. It seemed to die away in an echo, but it was significant. He said the tribunal may hold the power in its hands to deny that any person has a right to this so-called goodwill.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, you must have been wool-gathering.

Mr. MacLAREN: Perhaps I was. Let us be candid.
Where the landlord proves that the value of the goodwill has been created or increased.
What has been created or increased? The goodwill. Owing to what? To restrictions imposed. Now, for the first time on record in these Debates, we discover that goodwill is nothing more or less than the exertion of some monopolist. Some monopolists exert a power over a given area and can create what is called goodwill. If Dick Turpin comes along late at night and holds up passers-by, he is creating goodwill by blocking the traffic. I want to get this thing clearly explained, because I did not receive quite full satisfaction from the Home Secre-
tary. Is it meant by the Amendment that if a landlord, by virtue of being a landlord, prohibits other willing business men from venturing upon enterprises in a given area under his control, he will be able under this Amendment to claim some compensation, because the Amendment denies the tenant any right to this so-called goodwill? Do I take it that the monopolist, the man who has absolute control over the area, by virtue of having and exerting that power in prohibiting competition claims to have created goodwill? If this Amendment be carried, not only, in my opinion, has he been exercising a deterrent effect upon general development, not only has he hindered free development and free competition amongst his tenants, but he is to be compensated for having done so under the heading of goodwill. If I were asked what kind of goodwill this is, I should say it is nothing more or less than blackmail exacted by the landlord for exerting his powers in that way. If I was right in catching the last words which I thought the Home Secretary used, that, though there might be a goodwill attaching to such business, it would be within the power of the tribunal to refuse either to the landlord or the tenant the right to participate in it, clearly there is no use for the Amendment as it stands. If it is meant that the landlord may pocket something by virtue of the powers he has exerted as a landlord, anxious as I am to help the Home Secretary to get the Bill through, there is something here that requires a good deal of explaining away.

6.0 p.m.

Sir ROBERT SANDERS: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to give him a case in my own experience which I think is exactly to the point of this Amendment. Some years ago, I built a row of houses on certain land near London. I had a clause in every lease that they were only to be used for residential purposes. The hon. Member may object to that covenant being put in, but it was a covenant that all the tenants desired. They may have been right or wrong, but they wished to be in a row of residential houses and not a row including shops. As time went on and motor cars got more cheap and more popular, the tenants all wanted garages. On a bit of the land, I put up a number of garages. There were not quite enough
tenants to use the whole of them, so I let the rest of the stalls to a motor engineer. He knows that in that particular block of houses, he has an absolute monopoly, and he knows that by the use of the restrictive covenant the houses are only to be used for residential purposes. The business that he establishes, it seems to me, is a business that I have established entirely for him. And then when the lease comes to an end, because of the property which I have made and which I have developed, and in which his goodwill is entirely due to me, why should he claim compensation from me? That seems to be the case which is provided for in this Clause, which I think is a perfectly equitable Clause.

Mr. CRAWFURD: I do not think the case against this Clause could have been put better than in the case to which we have just listened. I do not intend to deal with the concluding sentences of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks because they are outside the scope of the proposal. May I make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary? It was his endeavour upstairs, I think, that this Bill should be as short as possible, so that we should know what it was or was not. There were several occasions on which I and others made appeals, which we knew were hopeless, to extend the scope of the Bill, but the right hon. Gentleman could not do that because there were limits set for him. But within those limits the right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to keep the Bill a watertight thing, so that the tenant should have something definitely given to him. In these Amendments from another place, it seems to me, round the outline of the Bill is the penumbra. Here is one of the cases. I do not think it helps us. I do not think it helps anything. It makes the Bill more complicated. There is another interest which is wider than the interests of the tenant and the landlord combined, and that is the public interest.
When this Bill becomes an Act, as we all hope it will—and may I take this opportunity, in one brief sentence, as I was not in England on the occasion of the Report and Third Reading of the Bill, to say how much I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has done in this Bill—undoubtedly certain landlords, I do
not say the majority, will seek professional advice as to how they can evade it. They might have had the benefit of the contracting out, but we hope they will not have that. There will be this question of goodwill. A landlord, when a lease is drawn, may put in a covenant to say whether, in a tenant's particular occupation, whether it be a trade or a business, or the professional occupations which are now included in the Bill, he shall have any rights. Whereas between the landlord and the tenant that may be fair, and this Clause may be fair, supposing that that landlord acquires another block of property for a tenant folowing a similar occupation, this Clause may drive him to attempt to get rid of the other tenant. It may lead to unfair results as between one tenant and another. Supposing it does not do that. What does it do? It tends to create a monopoly, the benefits of which are shared both by the landlord and the tenants, and, I think, in the long run it tends to make the services of one kind or another less available and dearer to the public generally.
The hon. Member for North Paddington (Sir W. Perring) said a few minutes ago that he thought competition was the life of business. Surely, whether that be so or not from the point of view of the business man, competition is good from the point of view of the public. I think that in this case we have to look to the public interest.

Mr. RYE: I would like to say a few words on the speech that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Paddington (Sir W. Perring), who stated that, in his experience, tenants did not want restrictions; they did not want other tenants to be debarred from carrying on their particular businesses, that is, the particular businesses of the tenants concerned. In my experience, that is not correct. I cannot imagine a case where a landlord has erected a series of shops—we will say, 12 shops in a new district—in which a would-be tenant, who intends to carry on a fruiterer's business, would not expect, and indeed ask, the landlord, during the currency of the intended lease not to let other of the premises for the purpose of a similar trade or business. It is all very well for my hon. Friend the Member for North Paddington to say that there are certain
traders who advertise. That is perfectly correct. There are, certainly, traders with a considerable amount of money who can advertise to a very large extent, but there are also a large number of business people carrying on the same sort of businesses who have not the means to advertise or to launch a large advertising campaign.
That particular class would most certainly desire to be protected by the landlord by a covenant debarring other tenants from carrying on a similar trade or business. If the landlord, in fairness to his own interest, it may be, puts that covenant in to prevent another tenant from carrying on the same trade or business, it seems to me quite clear that at the end of the term, part at least of the goodwill which has been created has been due to that bar or that restriction. I humbly suggest to the House that it would be manifestly unfair if the landlord had to pay for the whole of the goodwill attributable to the business carried on, because that business would necessarily have been enhanced by the very fact that no similar business could be carried on in the same block of buildings.
There is another ground, and it is this: The first business, the fruiterer's business, which has been so continually referred to in connection with this Bill, having been established for, say, seven years, it would be open to the landlord to offer a covenant not to let another shop when it became empty to the same trade, and at an enhanced rate, a special rent. The landlord gives up all that advantage, whatever it may be. I think that the Amendment is one which this House should accept, and I am sure the House will accept it.

Mr. DALTON: I do not wish to prolong the Debate, but may I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to let us have a free vote on this Amendment? The arguments against it are very persuasive, and it is contrary, I suggest, to the general tendency of the Committee upstairs. If the right hon. Gentleman will be willing to leave it to the free vote of the House, we shall be willing to agree to that course.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: rose—

An HON. MEMBER: Withdraw it!

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I cannot withdraw it. I think, with the permission of the House, there is something that I ought to say. There is a little misunderstanding about this question. It does not say that where there are restrictive covenants there should be no compensation. It simply means that the tribunal will take into consideration the necessity for allowing compensation, first for what a man has done in his own interests, and, secondly, where there is any value attached to the restrictive covenant.

Mr. HARDIE: Does the right hon. Gentleman assert that it is possible for a man to create increased trade by restrictions?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is quite possible for a landlord to increase the facilities for trade which a man has in a particular building. I think that the Amendment is fair, but I am quite willing to leave the decision to the House.

Sir G. HOHLER: I did not rise earlier, because I was desirous that this particular Amendment should go through without a long Debate. Then, to my great surprise, an appeal is made to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton), to leave the decision to a free vote of the House. I do not think that that is right. Because one is desirous of getting these Amendments through in time so that they may be dealt with in another place, we are told we have not had sufficient arguments upon them. I was a little unfortunate in not being able to move the Amendments which I put down to this Bill on the Report stage. Let us look at this Clause. It is said by my hon. Friend the Member for North Paddington (Sir W. Perring) that there is some principle in this Bill. I confess that I fail to find it. I think it is the most unprincipled Bill that has ever been brought before the House of Commons. We are told by the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) that he objects to it, and does not understand it, and so on. All I have to say is that that is his own fault. I gave him good instruction on this very subject.
All that this Clause proposes is, if it be true that the business for which the tenant is claiming the goodwill has not really been wholly created by him, but
has been, in part, increased by the restrictive covenants or otherwise by the landlord, then the tribunal shall take that into consideration. Is not that right? For instance, a man puts up a building estate and reserves—it is a common practice—one site of the property for licensed premises. Licensed premises are not within the purview of this Bill. Can it be said that a landlord who has reserved the very large area where there may be a licensed house, should be called upon to pay for the entire goodwill of the licensee without consideration of that which he has done himself, namely, imposed this restriction? It is a common thing in any new property or in any other property if it be a large property belonging to the same owner, to go to the landlord and say, "I want to take this as a grocer's or butcher's shop." Of course, this Bill has a far wider application than that. It is a common thing to say to your landlord, "Will you agree not to take any of your other property for a like purpose or within a certain radius?" This is commonly done, and yet when this tenant goes out, does he claim compensation which the landlord has largely secured him by virtue of the agreement in which he entered upon his tenancy?
What can be more just than that? In the case of this Clause, surely it is only just that that should be taken into consideration. I have always protested against this Bill, but I am in favour of this Amendment, because it is some measure of justice, and does to some extent relieve the landlord of the liability to pay goodwill to his tenant simply because the tenant has carried on the business ordinarily well. I am sorry that the Home Secretary did not insist upon this Amendment.

Sir J. POWER: I support the Amendment. It is frequently the case that in a terrace of shops the landlord restricts the occupancy of each shop to a separate trade, and it is undoubtedly the fact that when he does let a particular shop to a particular trade the tradesman who occupies that particular shop gets an advantage. The landlord in doing that may be incurring a loss. He may undertake with his tenant not to allow more than one class of trade to be carried on in that terrace, and in order to keep to that agreement he may have to suffer
several of the other shops remaining empty when he could possibly have let them to a similar trade. I think the landlord is keeping faith with the tenant at some loss in such a case and is undoubtedly conferring a benefit upon the particular tradesman by not bringing competition next door to him. I am certain that the House wishes to be fair in this matter, and I do not see how it is fair in the case of the landlord, who has undoubtedly incurred a loss in this way, that afterwards he should be made to pay compensation.

Mr. MacLAREN: Will the hon. Member look at the words of the Amendment? It says:
whether by agreement with the tenant or not.
The argument of the hon. Member is based upon the assumption that the agreement has been drawn between the landlord and the tenant. According to this Amendment, whether the agreement has been drawn up between the landlord and the tenant or not this benefit is to accrue to the landlord, because he has imposed a restriction.

Sir J. POWER: I do not think the hon. Member's interruption is justified. I cannot think that the House wish the landlord to pay compensation for goodwill which has been created largely at his own expense. On these grounds, I have pleasure in supporting the Amendment.

Sir HERBERT CUNLIFFE: I think this Amendment is in danger of being gravely misunderstood, and I would like to draw attention to one aspect of it. A very strong case has been made out in recent years for the community getting the benefit of the development of estates on the outskirts of large towns. A public authority may be developing an estate

and it may very well say, "We will only allow a certain number of shops of a particular trade in the particular area which we are developing." That would be a very fair thing to do. It would be an advantage to the development of the estate and it would give the tenant, to some extent, an advantage, because the tenant who is put in that position is able to create a trade which he would not otherwise be able to create if he were subject to competition from, say, half-a-dozen shops of the same kind. Supposing the public authority when the tenancy came to be determined is faced with a claim by the tenant for compensation for that which he has been able to create because the public authority have given him this whole or partial monopoly. Surely it would not be right that the compensation should be based as if the whole of that particular value which the tenant had built up had been wholly the result of his own effort.

Mr. HARDIE: What right has the landlord to the benefit?

Sir H. CUNLIFFE: I am not suggesting that the landlord has any right. That is not what the Amendment says. All that it says is that that fact shall be taken into consideration, and that the tenant shall not be compensated as though the whole of the value had been created by him. It is obvious that it would have been created because the community which, ex hypothesi, is the landlord, has given him a whole or partial monopoly. Surely, the tribunal which has to assess the compensation should take that into account. That is all that the Amendment says.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 109.

Division No. 488.]
AYES.
[6.23 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Clayton, G. C.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Buchan, John
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Buckingham, Sir H.
Cooper, A. Duff


Balniel, Lord
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Couper, J. B.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Calne, Gordon Hall
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Campbell, E. T.
Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Carver, Major W. H.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert


Bennett, A. J.
Cassels, J. D.
Dalkeith, Earl of


Berry, Sir George
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Davies, MaJ. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovil)


Betterton, Henry B.
Chamberlain.Rt.Hn.SirJ.A. (Birm.,W.)
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Blundell, F. N.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Drewe, C.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Clarry, Reginald George
Eden, Captain Anthony


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lamb, J. Q.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Sandon, Lord


Fielden, E. B.
Long, Major Eric
Savery, S. S.


Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Forrest, W.
Luce, Major-Gen.Sir Richard Harman
Smithers, Waldron


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Lumley, L. R.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Gates, Percy.
McLean, Major A.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G.F.


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Harrison, G. J. C.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Merriman, F. B.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Haslam, Henry C.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hawke, John Anthony
Murchison, Sir Kenneth
Turton, Sir Edmund Russborough


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Nicholson, Col. Rt.Hn.W.G.(Ptrsf'ld.)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Wells, S. R.


Hills, Major John Waller
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Williams, A M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Williams. Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Holt, Captain H. P.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Pliditch, Sir Philip
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hudson, Capt.A.U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whlteh'n)
Rentoul, G. S.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Hurst, Gerald B.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Illffe, Sir Edward M.
Rice, Sir Frederick



Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Iveagh, Countess of
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Mr. Dennis Herbert and Mr. Rye.


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Sandeman, N. Stewart



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Perring, Sir William George


Adamson, W. M. (Staff. Cannock)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Ponsonoy, Arthur


Ammon, Charles George
Grotrian, H. Brent
Potts, John S.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Groves, T.
Ramsden, E.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Remer, J. R.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barnes, A.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Ritson, J.


Barr, J.
Hayes, John Henry
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bondfield, Margaret
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St.Marylebone)
Scurr, John


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Bewyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bromley, J.
Kennedy, T.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Calthness)


Buchanan, G.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kirkwood, D
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Charleton, H. C.
Lawrence, Susan
Snell, Harry


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, John James
Stephen, Campbell


Compton, Joseph
Lindley, F. W.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Connolly, M.
Livingstone, A. M.
Strauss, E. A.


Cope, Major William
Lowth, T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cove, W. G.
MacLaren, Andrew
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Crawfurd, H. E.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Dalton, Hugh
Malone, Major P. B.
Thurtle, Ernest


Day, Colonel Harry
March, S.
Tinker, John Joseph


Dennison, R.
Margesson, Captain D.
Varley, Frank B.


Duncan, C.
Maxton, James
Viant, S.P.


Dunnlco, H.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Ellis, R. G.
Montague, Frederick
Wellock, Wilfred


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Whiteley, W.


Fenby, T. D.
Mosley, Oswald
Wiggins, William Martin


Fraser, Captain Ian
Naylor, T. E.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Gardner, J. P.
Palin, John Henry
Wright, W.


Gillett, George M.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Penny, Frederick George



Gosling, Harry
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. G. W. H. Jones and Mr. Hardie.


Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 3, leave out the word "agreement," and insert the words:
in a collateral agreement, unless, in the case of an option, the terms of the option are such that the tenant could not reasonably be expected to exercise it.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Again, this is a necessary Amendment, which I am glad to say their Lordships have inserted to the benefit of the
tenant. In Clause 4, it is provided that if the tenant gives notice to clear out, or does not exercise his right to obtain an option for a further term contained in the lease or agreement, compensation shall not be payable. It was discovered, however, that a landlord might make the terms of the option of such an onerous character that no tenant could reasonably be expected to accept it; and that it would be an easy way to enable a landlord to prevent a tenant getting compensation. Therefore, we propose to insert these words, which are purely in favour of the tenant. Let me make an appeal to hon. Members in all parts of the House. We are getting on very slowly, and we do not want to sit up all night to consider these Amendments. I will promise to put before the House any salient points there are in the Amendments, but I hope hon. Members will allow them to go through without too much debate.

Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 16, at the end, insert new Sub-section.
(2) For the purposes of this Section, premises shall be deemed to be used for a more profitable purpose if, but not unless, the rent which the landlord could obtain for the premises if used for that purpose would be greater than the rent which could be obtained if they were used for the purpose of the trade or business carried on by the tenant.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is not a drafting Amendment. If hon. Members will look at page 6 of the Bill they will see that there is a proviso to this effect:
In determining such addition the tribunal shall, if it is proved that the premises will be demolished wholly or partially, or used for a different, and more profitable purpose, have regard to the effect of such demolition or change of user on the value of the goodwill to the landlord.
I think the words "more profitable purpose" should be explained in the Bill, and we have inserted this new Sub-section in order to carry out that suggestion.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 7, line 33, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 5.—(Right to new lease in certain cases.)

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 1, after the word "tenancy" insert.
or, where the tenancy is terminated by notice, within two months after the service of the notice.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is rather a necessary Amendment. In Clause 5 if a tenant has served on the landlord a notice requiring a new agreement, and the landlord or tenant serves notice on the tribunal, such notice is to be served not lees than nine months before the termination of the tenancy. Hon. and learned Members of the House know that there are some tenancies which enable a landlord to terminate it at quite short notice. A landlord may give three months' notice to the tenant, and in that case the tenant has not nine months in which he can give the necessary notice to go to the tribunal. Therefore, we think that the insertion of these words "or where the tenancy is terminated by notice within two months after the service of the notice" are necessary.

Sir H. SLESSER: I should like to ask one question on this point. It appears that the notice may be only one month, and the same difficulty will arise on the two months' notice as that which the right hon. Gentleman indicates will arise now. It may be better to delete the words altogether. There is no reason to suppose that two months will meet the difficulty if the notice is only one month.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think the hon. and learned Member is quite right there. I think the difficulty may be got over by the insertion after the word "notice" of the words "as soon as possible thereafter." The best way of meeting the difficulty is for me to withdraw the Motion to agree with the Lords Amendment, and afterwards to move an Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Motion must be withdrawn first.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment to Lords Amendment made: Leave out all the words after the word "notice" and insert instead thereof the words "as soon as possible thereafter."—[Sir W. Joynson-Hicks.]

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 9, line 40, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 21, after the word "section", insert "or of a renewal of a lease granted in lieu of compensation under the last foregoing section."

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I think I ought to mention this Amendment. If hon. Members will look at Clause 5, Sub-section 8, it says:
No claim for a new lease under this Section shall arise in respect of goodwill attaching to the premises and attributable to the trade or business carried on thereat during the term of a new lease granted in pursuance of this Section, without prejudice, however, to the right to make a claim for compensation under the last foregoing Section in respect of goodwill created during the term of such new lease.
If a landlord voluntarily offers a renewal of a lease, instead of going to the tribunal to get a new lease, it is quite clear that he would be in the same position as to goodwill under the new lease as if he had driven the tenant to the tribunal and the tenant had obtained an order against the landlord for a new lease. Therefore, we propose to insert these words.

Mr. RYE: Is it quite clear that this will be the renewal of a lease granted by a landlord in lieu of the case going before the tribunal? Do not the words seem to point to the fact that this is a lease granted by an order of the tribunal and, therefore, there should not be further references to a renewal of such a lease. The case the right hon. Gentleman has in mind is one in which the landlord himself has granted a lease instead of having the case brought before the tribunal.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: With great respect to the hon. Member I have no doubt about it myself. Under this Section no claim for a new lease will
arise in respect of goodwill attaching to the premises and attributable to the trade or business carried on during the term of a new lease granted in pursuance of this Sub-section; or the renewal of a lease granted in lieu of compensation under Clause 4 of the Bill. The tenant is not entitled to compensation if the landlord says, "I will give you a new lease, I will renew your lease." If he gets renewal of his lease whether under the order of a tribunal or whether under an agreement with the landlord it is clear that the new lease should not include the right to appeal for goodwill against the landlord.

Mr. RYE: Would it be possible in order to, make the matter clearer to put in the words "if granted by the landlord" in the Amendment? At any rate I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider it.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 10, to line 37, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 19, at the end, insert
a reversionary lease granted in pursuance of such an Order shall be deemed to be a lease authorised by Section ninety-nine of the Law of Property Act, 1925.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Section 99 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, refers to a lease granted by a mortgagor, and the present Bill provides that:
Every such lease and reversionary lease shall be so framed as to confer on the landlord granting the lease the same rights of distress as he would have enjoyed had he retained a reversion expectant on the termination thereof.
If it is a lease granted by the tribunal it may be assumed it will be a proper lease and a proper rent and, therefore, in order to meet the point of the mortgagee it must be deemed to be a lease granted under the provisions of Section 99 of the Law of Property Act, 1925.

Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 23, after the word "lease" insert
unless the landlord has by licence or otherwise consented to a variation of the original terms of the lease in this respect.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This again is an Amendment inserted by the Lords in favour of the tenant. It relates to those cases where there was in the lease a condition that only a particular business should be carried on and where the landlord has by licence permitted trades to be carried on under the original lease. It provides that if these licences have been granted it should not be necessary or obligatory on the tribunal to grant new licences including the provisions of the old lease, so far as they are not altered by the terms of the licence which was granted. If a landlord has granted permission to carry on a business, when the new lease is granted they are not bound to go back to the old lease but may have regard to the licence in favour of the tenant.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 11, line 35, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 6.—(Right of landlord to offer alternative accommodation.)

Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 43, at the end, insert:

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE A.—(Provision when claim is both for improvement and good will.)

A. Where in respect of any holding a claim for compensation has been made both for improvements and for goodwill, and the landlord has offered in lieu of compensation for either such claim to grant to the tenant, or obtain the grant to him of, a renewal of the tenancy, the rent under such renewal shall, if both such claims are valid, be fixed irrespective of any increased value of the premises attributable whether to the improvements or to the goodwill.

Lords Amendment read a Second time.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in this said Amendment."
This Amendment is intended to remove a difficulty. Where there are two valid claims, one for compensation for improvements and one for compensation for goodwill, and in order to get rid of the two claims the landlord offers what the tenant is prepared to take, a renewal of the tenancy, the lease ought to be fixed irrespective of the value of the improvement and goodwill.

Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 43, at the end, insert:

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE B.—(Provisions as to premises subject to Rent Restrictions Acts.)

B.—(1) The tribunal shall not entertain an application under Section three of this Act if at the time of the application the applicant is a person in possession of the premises by virtue of the Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Acts, 1920 to 1925.

(2) No compensation shall be payable for goodwill attaching to any premises if and so far as such goodwill is attributable to the trade or business carried on thereat during any period during which possession of the premises has been retained by virtue of the Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Acts, 1920 to 1925, and such period as aforesaid shall be excluded in computing for the purposes of this Part of tins Act the length of time during which the trade or business has been carried on at the premises.

Lords Amendment read a Second time.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I spoke about this Amendment earlier in the day. It raises one of the most difficult questions in the Bill. The Lords feel that it is not fair, where a tenant is in possession by reason of the provisions of the Rent Restrictions Acts, that he should be able—while he is, as it were, an unwanted tenant, where the landlord would, presumably, get rid of him if he could—to have the benefit of this Bill. He shall not be entitled to go to his unwilling landlord and say to him, "Here am I. You cannot turn me out because of the provisions of the Rent Restrictions Acts. I am going to put in a new bow window, or build a garage, or carry out certain improvements which I am entitled to do under the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1927." The landlord replies, "That is extraordinarily unfair, because it is not my wish that you should remain. The State has put you here, and I cannot get rid of you." Similarly, where the tenant has, during the period of unwilling tenancy, built up goodwill during the last six years, the landlord might reasonably be entitled to say, "No, I do not think it is fair that you should go on piling up a claim for goodwill against me when, after all, I do not want you there at all. I would much sooner have got rid of you,
and as soon as the Rent Restrictions Acts come to an end I shall get rid of you, and let the premises to a much better tenant." The Lords feel that in those circumstances, and with the restrictions placed on the landlord, the landlord ought to be entitled to say, "Very well, I cannot get rid of the rent restrictions, but at all events I am not to be bound by the provisions of this new Landlord and Tenant Bill, either to grant compensation for improvements or for goodwill."

Mr. DALTON: This is an Amendment of great importance, and my hon. Friends and myself are very strongly opposed to it. We shall divide the House against it if the Motion is pressed. We take the view that the Amendment deprives of a benefit a very large proportion of those for whom that benefit is designed. This will apply particularly to small shop keepers who live over their premises. The action of the House of Lords in making this Amendment is exactly in line with the action of a certain section in this House, who in Standing Committee were continually pressing the Home Secretary to whittle down and emasculate this Bill until it was not worth proceeding with. I suggest that the Home Secretary's case, as we have just heard it, is not a reasonable one. It cannot be assumed that all tenants who enjoy the legal protection of the Rent Restrictions Acts are unwanted tenants. It may be that the rents are controlled, but it by no means follows that the landlord wishes to get rid of the tenant. Nor, to come back to the fundamental point, does it at all follow that improvements carried out by tenants should he allowed to pass into the possession of landlords My hon. Friends and I regard this Amendment as cutting at the root of the Bill, and we shall oppose it.

Mr. D. HERBERT: I hope that on this occasion the Government will support the Lords Amendment. The position which has been taken up by the Opposition towards this Amendment merely seems to point to the fact that they are trying to get all they can, whether it be fair or not. What is the position here under the Rent Restrictions Acts? You have a tenant who has been in occupation, probably contrary to the wishes of and at any rate by compulsion on his landlord, for a period of at least 10 years,
and during that time he has really had all the compensation to which he is reasonably entitled. The probability is that in many cases he has had a great deal more. It is a very simple point. These tenants, under the statutory holding of the Rent Restrictions Acts, have had a prolongation of their tenancy at the same rent, subject only to slight modifications allowed under the Acts, for a period of 10 years. Now in spite of that, the Opposition want to give them a further extension of tenancy under the Bill. These tenants have already had 10 years, and that ought to be sufficient compensation for them, and in many cases the injury to the landlord will have been very much greater under the Rent Restrictions Acts than the injury that he would suffer under this particular Bill in cases where the Rent Restrictions Acts do not apply.

Mr. MacLAREN: I hope the House will take these Amendments seriously and refuse to pass them. Whatever may be said about the unwanted tenant, the fact remains that this House has passed certain Acts which protect these tenants in given circumstances. The passing of these Lords Amendments means putting people who have acted legally, outside the benefit of the previous Acts. I hope that this is not going to be a precedent, because it is a very dangerous precedent—for this House to pass certain Acts for the benefit of certain citizens, and for a subsequent Act to be passed to rob the citizens of the benefit of previous Acts. Whether a tenant is wanted or unwanted is beside the whole question. The people who will be affected here will be affected unwarrantably. They have acted in strict consistency with the law, and it is very unbecoming of any hon. Member opposite to assess the benefit for improvements or for goodwill in terms of 10 years of restricted rent under the Rent Restrictions Acts. I hope the House will pause before it assents to Amendments which wholly nullify the good which this House hope to extend to a body of citizens by previous Acts of Parliament. I hope that even the Home Secretary will be influenced by our arguments.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. CRAWFURD: The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert) prefaced his remarks by saying that he thought the opponents of this Amendment were
prepared to take anything, whether it was fair or not. I fear that the hon. Member has failed to understand the purpose of the Opposition, and he has failed entirely to understand the Bill, or this particular new Clause. It is true, as the last speaker said, that the Rent Restrictions Acts have nothing whatever to do with this Bill. The two things should not be mixed at all. I am very disappointed with the Home Secretary. Some of us were regarding him as almost a brand about to be plucked from the burning, but he has suddenly retreated and taken shelter behind the Amendments of another place. The right hon. Gentleman, when moving that this House agree with the Amendment, gave a picture, but did he really think it was a fair picture? He described a landlord who was anxious to get rid of a tenant. Let us assume that he is an unwanted tenant. The landlord has this unwanted tenant and the tenant says to him, "You cannot get rid of me because of the Rent Restrictions Acts. I can defy you. I am going to put in a new window or a new door, or take out an old window or an old door." The right hon. Gentleman knows that the tenant can do nothing of the sort. Under this Bill he can do nothing of the sort. He has to prepare plans and objections can be made. He can do none of these things unless they are calculated to benefit the property. This Bill is not going to give any compensation either for improvements or for goodwill to that tenant unless he has added to the letting value of the property—not the value at which it is let under the Rent Restrictions Acts. That is an important point. It is simply that addition to the rent which is made or which comes about by virtue of the improvements made or the goodwill created. The wording of the Bill is there. Compensation can be paid only in respect of an improvement or goodwill which creates an additional value to the rent due to these improvements or goodwill. You do nothing else. Surely, if that be the case, then the right hon. Gentleman must admit there is no logical or fair distinction between those tenants who happen to be under the Rent Restrictions Acts and those who are not. You cannot offset the benefits received under one piece of legislation and the benefits derived from another and say that, on the whole, a man ought not to
have two sets of benefits. The two Acts are entirely distinct, and this Bill is going to give nothing that is not created by the improvements or by the goodwill belonging to the tenants. If the right hon. Gentleman gives way on this point, he is really throwing away a very large part of the value of this Bill. Not only that, but he is withdrawing from the benefits of the Bill the poorest class of people who might have benefited under the Bill. I am not so concerned with the large shopkeeper in this Bill; he can look after himself. The man who wants the benefit of this Bill is the man with nobody to protect him and who cannot afford legal assistance. It is just those men that the right hon. Gentleman is now deserting, and I hope that he will reconsider his decision.

Major HILLS: As I understand the principle of the Bill, it is this. It says that, in certain circumstances, the benefits of improvement in the premises and of the increased value afforded by goodwill are to go to the tenant and not to the landlord. This Amendment deprives all tenants who hold under the Rent Restrictions Acts from the benefit of that principle. I will try to put the case for and against this Amendment as well as I can. The case for the Amendment is that these tenants are holding against the will of the landlord, that they have so held for many years, and that they are not increasing the real value of the property. Secondly, the case is made that, if you allow them to receive the benefits of this Act, and that benefit might include an extended lease, it might be that, when the Rent Restrictions Acts are terminated, you might in some cases have extended those Acts beyond their general date of termination. Those are two very strong points in favour of the Lords Amendment.
Now comes the other side. First of all, unless you do allow these statutory tenants some benefits under the Act, I think you must admit that you do exclude from the Act a very large class of tenants, and those who most want protection. Further, it may be that the advantage the landlord gains from the improvement and from the goodwill created by the tenant may be greater than the loss the landlord has incurred through the diminished rent over a period of years. I can conceive a case in which
that might be the effect. Anyhow, I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. D. Herbert) is entitled to rule out altogether such cases. Ought not a balance be struck of profit and loss?

Mr. D. HERBERT: The maximum compensation in the case of a grant of a new lease under the Bill is 14 years. My point is, that already that tenant has had that compensation in that he has had the extended lease without an increase of rent.

Major HILLS: He has not had it 14 years, anyhow. I quite agree that all relevant facts should be taken into account. The fairest way to treat this matter would be to allow the tribunal to balance the loss against the profit. I quite agree that, if the landlord loses more through a tenant sitting on when he really was not wanted at all, in such cases I would not make the landlord pay for the goodwill or improvement due to the tenant, but, still, I can imagine cases in which the profit to the landlord was greater than the loss. I suppose, at this late stage of the Debate, and on the day before we rise, it is impossible to draft an Amendment to meet that difficulty, but I do think it is a difficulty and a matter that the House ought to take into consideration.

Sir H. CUNLIFFE: I sincerely hope the House will disagree with this particular Amendment, and I would like to appeal to the Home Secretary to leave it to the free vote of the House. I would appeal to hon. Members on my side of the House not to cut down unfairly and illogically the benefits of the Bill, on the main principles of which everybody in the House is agreed. It is important that we should realise what is proposed by this Amendment. The people who are getting the benefits of the Rent Restrictions Acts are getting them because the Legislature had come definitely and clearly to the conclusion that they were entitled to them and, that being so, I cannot see why they should be deprived of the benefits of this Measure, which, with one or two exceptions, we all agree has a strong underlying principle of justice. I cannot see either the logic or fairness of leaving it to the tribunal to set off the benefits already conferred by
the Legislature under the Rent Restrictions Acts against the advantages or disadvantages conferred by this Act. It seems to me illogical and unfair, and I hope the Home Secretary will leave the matter to the free vote of the House. I hope, too, that my hon. Friends on this side will not try to cut down something which we are all anxious to see given to the tenants.

Sir W. PERRING: I am, perhaps, more deeply concerned with this Amendment than any other Member. I succeeded on the Report stage in securing a free vote, and thereby carrying an Amendment on the interpretation of the word "lease," which brought into the benefits of the Bill a large number of poor tenants who were holding their tenancies under monthly, quarterly or yearly tenancies. The Government took a very wise course, and brought consolation to a large number of very poor tenants and they deserve credit for it. Now, by a side-wind, I fear that this Amendment is going to deprive nearly all those tenants of the benefit of this Bill. This Amendment is of a two-fold character. It deals with improvements and with compensation for improvements. The statutory tenant is a statutory tenant by the fact of having received notice from his landlord. But there are a large number of tenants who are not statutory tenants to-day, but, if the date 26th March is continued in this Bill, an opportunity will be given to a very large number of landlords between to-morrow, when this Bill becomes law, and that date to make all those tenants, who are holding on with short tenancies, statutory tenants. The monthly tenant could receive notice to quit between now and March and, if he seeks the protection of the Court, he will then become a statutory tenant. The same principle might be applied to a quarterly tenant.
The effect of this Amendment is that a large number of tenants who are not now statutory tenants will be made statutory tenants. Take the case of an agent to a large estate, the landlord being abroad. That agent is bound to do his duty to his employer and is entitled to take advantage of the law to protect the interests of his landlord. He can give them notice, make them statutory tenants, and deprive them of the benefits of this Bill, so that they cannot count for the
purposes of compensation the years that they have been statutory tenants. That will have the effect of either minimising or altogether preventing the tenant from securing compensation. The agent or the landlord would be perfectly justified in serving these tenants with notice. If the Home Secretary says he will alter the date, it will modify my position to a large degree.
Although the tenant may enjoy a low rent to-day, that is not the governing factor in the assessment of the amount of compensation to which he is entitled. The amount of compensation is governed by whether the tenant has increased the letting value of the property, in which event the landlord has to pay him compensation if he does not want to reinstate him. Under this, a landlord can get rid of his tenant without compensation and relet to another tenant in the same trade, because there is no obligation on the landlord after he has got rid of his tenant. He can relet at an enhanced value due to the tenant's activities and secure all the benefit of it. I am sure no one who supported this Bill through all its stages ever intended that the landlord should enjoy the advantage of evicting his tenant, not paying him compensation, and enjoying all the advantages of his activities.
I do not think it is the intention of the Government that the landlord should have all the benefit of the enhanced value which accrued during the period of the Rent Restrictions Acts. If it is, the Government ought to say so. It is a clear issue and we ought to know what the Government intend. My own view is that the Lord Chancellor, in accepting this Amendment, had not both sides of the question before him and did not fully realise its effects. I dare say that representations were made on behalf of those who were interested in getting this Amendment into the Bill, which is the usual course, but, in the other place, there is nobody who directly represents the traders as there is in this House and the two sides of the question could not be presented. The Government, I suggest, have accepted this Amendment without reviewing the facts on both sides and I think they could now in this House with a good grace give us a free vote on the matter. I do not think they will surrender anything by doing so. In fact I
think they will be wise to take that course, because it will show that on reflection they consider that there is something to be said on the other side of the question and that they will not take upon themselves the onus and responsibility of denying to these tenants some measure of protection.

Sir H. SLESSER: I think the hon. Member for Paddington (Sir W. Perring) has understated his case. As I read the Amendment, the power of the landlord to turn a person into a statutory tenant and so bring himself outside this Clause is not limited to the period before the Act comes into operation. It appears to me that at any time, so long as the Rent Restriction Acts are in operation, all the landlord has to do in order to exclude himself from this Measure in regard to statutory tenants is to serve the tenant with notice to quit.

Sir W. PERRING: Would it, not be correct to say that when the machinery of this Measure is operating, if the landlord serves notice on the tenant, then the tenant can serve the landlord with notice for compensation, if he is not a statutory tenant?

Sir H. SLESSER: I am supporting everything which the hon. Member said, but if he will follow me, I think he will find that the situation is even worse than be described it. What I have said is that this Amendment provides that, where notice to quit has been served on a person who, after that date would have to leave the premises but for the provisions of the Rent Restriction Acts, then this Measure ceases to apply. That effect applies just as much after the Measure has come into force as before. Take the case of a small tenant in the year 1930 who is on a weekly tenancy. He is served by the landlord with notice to quit, which is perfectly right under the common law. The tenant remains on because of the Rent Restriction Acts. Thus the premises have been retained "by virtue of the Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Acts." Therefore, at any time so long as the Rent Restrictions Acts are in force, any landlord by serving notice on any person who has a tenancy which comes within the ambit of the Rent Restrictions Acts, and has a period of notice which enables the landlord to serve him with notice at any time—any such
landlord, I say, can extricate himself from the provisions of this Measure by merely serving notice either himself or through his agents.
That being the case we are faced with a serious situation. I am not suggesting that landlords will deliberately serve notices for the purpose of excluding them selves from the Measure, but if the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) is right that there may be cases where the liabilities of the landlord would be greater than the benefits which he would receive, then a great inducement will be offered to landlords or agents to take advantage of this Amendment. That is a serious consideration and I cannot help feeling that if the Home Secretary had intended, of his own will, to make such a limitation as is here proposed, he would have done so either during the Committee or Report stages of the Bill. To do the Government justice, may I say it is not suggested that they ever wanted this limitation. In another place this Amendment has been decided on by a majority, but I do not understand that even now the Home Secretary regards it as an expedient Amendment. I am not very happy either about the wording of the Amendment even on the assumption that it is only used—if I may say so without any offence—in a bona pde manner. What it provides is that no compensation shall be payable for goodwill during any period during which possession of the premises has been retained by virtue of the Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Acts. What is the meaning of the words "by virtue of"? Do they apply to a case where the tenant has been to the Court and has defeated the landlord by pleading the Rent Restrictions Acts, or do they include a case where the landlord has served notice and then, realising that his position is hopeless, has never contested the point in the Courts at all?
There must be many tenants who have remained in their premises without an agreement at common law, because the landlord knows that although he has served notice so as to make them, technically, statutory tenants, yet if he went to Court he would inevitably be defeated. Therefore, the matter has never been litigated at all. All these persons—not only those who have won in a Court of
Law, but those against whom the landlord has not troubled himself to proceed—may be said to be tenants who are holding "by virtue of the Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Acts." There must be thousands of small shopkeepers who live over their shops and in whose cases there has been no litigation between landlord and tenant on this matter. Perhaps there has been no communication on the subject between the parties at all, or, possibly, the landlord has served notice knowing that the Rent Restrictions Acts apply. A nice question would then arise as to whether the landlord taking the money from week to week, has agreed to the continuance of the original common law agreement or whether he is in fact continuing it because he knows that he cannot get the tenant out under the Rent Restrictions Acts. Here we have a prospect of complicated and protracted litigation, in addition to the prospect that the less scrupulous landlords may use this as a means of excluding themselves from this Measure. Furthermore, we are asked to agree to this very serious Amendment at the end of a discussion which has gone on for months. In the circumstances I press for a free vote on this question and I believe the sense of this House will be that the other place have gone too far in this Amendment and that the original position ought to be restored.

Mr. WITHERS: I feel very strongly that this Amendment goes much too far. I think it is very wrong to say that the tribunal is not to entertain an application and that no compensation shall be payable in cases where the tenant is in occupation under these Acts. If any Amendment at all is necessary, which I very much doubt, the right thing to do would be to say that the tribunal "may" take into consideration the fact that a tenant is in occupation under these Acts, but I do not think the Amendment ought to go beyond that.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am in some difficulty in regard to this Amendment. As the hon. and learned Member for South-East Leeds (Sir H. Slesser) has said, this proposal was not part of the original Bill and was not proposed or inserted during the Committee or Report stages of the Measure here. I feel, however, that I cannot withdraw an Amendment which was accepted by my colleague
the Lord Chancellor in the other place. But after the appeals which have been made to me, particularly from my own side, to leave the matter to a free vote of the House, I am prepared to do so, if that will meet the views of the House.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and negatived.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 12, line 36, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 8.—(Prohibition of contracting out.)

Lords Amendment: In page 12, line 37, leave out Clause 8. and insert:

Orders of the Day — New CLAUSE C.—(Restriction on contracting out.)

C. This Part of this Act shall apply notwithstanding any contract to the contrary, being a contract made at any time after the thirtieth day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven:

Provided that if on the hearing of a claim or application under this Part of this Act it appears to the tribunal that such contract as aforesaid, so far as it deprives any person of any right under this Part of this Act, was made for adequate consideration, the tribunal shall in determining the matter give effect thereto.

Lords Amendment read a Second time.

Amendment divided.

So much of the Lords Amendment as proposes to leave out Clause 8, agreed to.

So much of the Lords Amendment as proposes to insert new Clause C, considered.

Mr. DALTON: I consulted you, Mr. Speaker, as to the propriety and the method of moving an Amendment to this proposed new Clause, and I think I am in order in raising the matter at this stage in order to give notice that I shall move an Amendment to substitute for the words "thirtieth day of March," the words "first day of January."

Mr. SPEAKER: The Government have handed in an Amendment to this Clause, which will arise later, but I think the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) is in order in bringing forward his Amendment first.

Mr. DALTON: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 3, to leave out the words
"thirtieth day of March" and to insert instead thereof the words "first day of January."
In regard to this Clause it is evident that in another place a serious attempt was made to kill the Bill, because if this Clause had been retained in its original form, the Bill would not have been worth the paper on which it is printed. Fortunately, second thoughts prevailed and a place was found for the tenants. We now have a compromise, which is not acceptable to us, although it is very much better than the situation which would have prevailed had those in another place not had second thoughts. The Amendment will put back the limiting date, as between contracts which should be void and those which should not, from 30th March to 1st January, and I move it because notice was given of this Measure by the Government in the King's Speech, and it is very likely that some contracts may have been entered into between the giving of that notice and 30th March.

Mr. TINKER: I beg to second the Amendment.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. The date which is in the Lords Amendment, with which, subject to an Amendment, I propose to ask the House to agree, is the date of the coming into force of the Bill, and the reason which the hon. Member has given for his Amendment is, therefore, not one which appeals to the Government.

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: I support the Amendment because, personally, I cannot help feeling that it would have been far better to have had it as it is in Clause 8, which refers to any contract "made whether before or after the commencement of this Act." If proper consideration has been given, I cannot see why new legislation should make a contract void.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I hope the Government will give a free vote on this question. They seem to have been favourable to doing that, and I think they could do it here with justice all round. Ever since the Prime Minister's pronouncement at Scarborough in 1926 that it was the Government's intention to introduce such
a Bill as this, attempts have been made in draft leases to put in a contracting-out Clause, and since it was announced in the King's Speech that this Bill was going to be part of the Government's programme for this Session, I have seen draft leases submitted to prospective tenants containing a Clause that they would agree to a contracting-out of any legislation such as this. Bearing that in mind, I submit that there is something in the contention that the date should be put back, at any rate, to 1st January. It is true to say that in the case of draft leases submitted there were pencil notes written by the solicitors for the would-be tenant stating that no agreement could be entered into to contract out of any Act of Parliament, but here we are going to have it placed distinctly in the Bill that there will be permission to contract out. I am not a lawyer, but I submit that, so far as I know, there is no Act of Parliament that allows contracting out in this way. At any rate, do not let us do an injustice by saying that those who have been compelled, because they wanted certain premises, to agree to sign a contracting-out Clause, should be held to that obligation.

Mr. RYE: The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) has told the House that he has known cases where, at an early date in this year, provision has been made to contract out of a contemplated Act of parliament.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I said I had seen draft leases submitted to would-be tenants in which a Clause actually appeared to the effect that they agreed to contracting out. One lease in particular was from the Sun Insurance Company, which is one of the largest property owners in the country.

Mr. RYE: That is exactly what I said. In my experience I have not seen one of those leases containing any such provision. I have not seen a draft lease or an engrossment of a lease or a, completed lease with such a provision, and I do not think there are many of those cases. I do not think there are many of these Machiavellian solicitors or landlords who make provision in advance for suggested Acts of Parliament. It is possible that there may have been some ingenious person who, on one occa-
sion, did make a provision such as has been mentioned, but I should say it was an isolated case. I suggest that 30th March is a reasonable date. This Bill was brought in on that date, and it is reasonable that since that date provision should have been made, and I cannot see why, if a contract was entered into before that date, it should be interfered with.
I hope the Government will not leave this Amendment to a free vote of the House, though I am not very confident as to that, because it seems to me that once again hypnotic influence has been brought to bear on the Government, and free votes are being allowed. Probably the Solicitor-General, if pressed, will agree, on behalf of the Government, that this Amendment should go to a free vote, and I have no doubt that hon. Members opposite, who have been successful in getting their own way, will once more be successful. I do not lay much stress on this point, but I do hope that on this occasion the Government will stiffen their backbone and not give way.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I do not think there can be many contracts that would have been made between 1st January and 30th March, but if the hon. Member opposite and his party think it is reasonable, I am prepared to offer the date of the King's Speech, which is 8th February, when the announcement was made that the Bill will be introduced.

Mr. DALTON: I will accept that offer and ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment to Lords Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made to Lords Amendment:

In line 3, leave out the words "thirtieth day of March," and insert instead thereof the words "eighth day of February."

In line 7, leave out the words "such contract," and insert instead thereof the words "a contract made after such date."—[The Solicitor-General.]

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 15, line 21, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 16.—(Holdings to which Part I applies.)

Lords Amendment: In page 16, line 2, at the end, insert new Sub-section:
(2) This Part of this Act shall not apply to any holding let to a tenant as the holder of any office, appointment or employment, from the landlord, and continuing so long as the tenant holds such office, appointment or employment, but in the case of a tenancy created after the commencement of this Act, only if the contract is in writing and expresses the purpose for which the tenancy is created.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is not merely a drafting Amendment. It is clear that if a landlord lets premises to a tenant in the landlord's employment, carrying on the landlord's business, the tenant ought not to be entitled to claim either compensation or a new lease from the landlord. I think the new Sub-section here proposed remedies that defect.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 18, line 6, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 18.—(Provisions as to covenants not to assign, etc., without licence or consent.)

Lords Amendment: In page 18, line 10, leave out from the word "not" to the end of line 11, and insert:
a Government Department or local or public authority, or a statutory or public utility company.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
In the Bill as it left this House the exemption provisions of the last part of Sub-section (1) of Clause 18 applied to Government Departments, local or public authorities, or public utility companies, and charities. There seems no reason why charities should be included in the exemptions. They are not on the same footing as dock companies, which might be prejudiced if premises that have been leased are assigned to competitors. It was on that particular ground that dock companies and other public companies in the same position were exempted.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 19, line 21, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 19, line 25, at the end, insert:
and Paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1), Sub-section (2) and Sub-section (3) of this Section shall not apply to mining leases.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr, E. BROWN: Ought we not to have a word of explanation about this, as it is not entirely a drafting Amendment? The Home Secretary said there was a point at issue, and I should be glad to have some information.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Mining leases have been excluded from this Clause because the Mines (Working Facilities) Act, 1923, affords the holders of mining leases most of the rights or privileges which Clause 18, Sub-section (2) gives to the holders of other leases. There is already statutory machinery dealing with this particular industry, and, in accordance with the general principle, it seems undesirable that another Act should duplicate the same rights and deal with a matter which has been dealt with under another Act. So it is to prevent repetition in another Act that this Amendment has been put in.

Mr. HARDIE: In the Act referred to there is nothing said about compensation between the owner of the coal measures and the people who work them. If there is a question of compensation I can understand it, but since compensation is not mentioned in the Act referred to, it seems to me that, if you are going to compensate in a general way places of business, a coal mine should be treated as a place of business just as much as a shop, and can the hon. and learned Gentleman explain why it is that they have gone so far as to leave mines out?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am not suggesting that the Mines (Working Facilities) Act, 1923, is exactly on all-fours with this Bill, but it does deal with the subject which is appropriate to that Act, and which is not appropriate to this Bill. I do not think that this House ever intended that this Bill, which deals with landlord and tenant, should deal with mining leases. It was
intended to deal with an entirely different class of tenant. It is undesirable to import into a Bill dealing with landlord and tenant provisions dealing with mining leases, which are provided for in another Act of Parliament. It may be that Parliament has not done everything that hon. Members opposite would like, but it seems undesirable to have in this Bill a duplication of provisions dealing with mining leases.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 19, line 37, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 19.—(Apportionment of Rents.)

Lords Amendment: In page 19, line 42, at the end, insert new Sub-section:
(2) Where the reason for the application was due to any action taken by a person other than the applicant, the Minister shall notwithstanding anything in Section fourteen of the Inclosure Act, 1854, have power to direct by whom and in what manner the expenses of the application or any part thereof are to be paid.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
These Amendments, all of which except this one the House has agreed to, are technical Amendments which have been thought necessary by the Minister of Agriculture to improve the scope and intention of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 20.—(Tribunal.)

Lords Amendment: In page 20, leave out Clause 20 and insert:

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE D.—(Provisions as to tribunal.)

"D.—(1) The tribunal for the purposes of Part I of this Act shall be the County Court within the district of which the premises or any part thereof are situated acting under and in accordance with this Section:

Provided that—

(a) if before commencing proceedings in the County Court the claimant or applicant and all persons affected agree that the claim or application should be heard by the High Court; or
(b) if on an application being made to the High Court within the prescribed time the matter is transferred to the High Court in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Section
504
one hundred and twenty-six of the County Courts Act, 1888;

the High Court shall, in respect of the matter, be the tribunal for the purposes of Part I of this Act.

(2) Where proceedings are commenced in the County Court in respect of any claim or application under Part I of this Act and are not transferred to the High Court, the matter shall, unless the parties otherwise agree, or it is otherwise prescribed, stand referred for inquiry and report to such one of the panel of referees appointed by the Reference Committee hereinafter mentioned as may be selected by the County Court, as if with the consent of the parties the matter had been so referred to him in pursuance of Section six of the County Courts Act, 1919.

(3) The power of selecting a referee from the panel shall, unless any of the parties object, be exerciseable by the registrar of the County Court, and if there is such an objection by the Judge.

(4) In any proceedings before the referee not more than one expert witness on either side shall be heard unless the referee or the Judge of the County Court otherwise directs.

(5) County Court rules may be made for regulating proceedings under this Section and for enabling any party to apply to the County Court for directions as to the conduct of a reference under this Section, and those rules may fix the remuneration of referees and may provide for applying, subject to the necessary adaptations and exceptions, to costs of proceedings in County Courts under this Section, the provisions of Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section five of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, relating to costs of proceedings under that Act.

(6) The Reference Committee for the purposes of this Act shall consist of the Lord Chief Justice of England, the Master of the Rolls, the president of the Law Society, and the president of the Surveyors' Institution, and the committee shall have power to appoint such persons as they think fit to be members of the panel of referees either generally or for particular localities, and to remove from the panel any person so appointed.

(7) Rules of the Supreme Court may be made regulating proceedings under this Act commenced in or transferred to the High Court and those rules may provide that on the hearing of a summons for directions, the Court or a Judge thereof may, without any application for the purpose being made by any party, order the matter to be referred for inquiry and report to such one of the said panel of referees as may be selected by the Court or a Judge thereof subject to such directions (if any) as the Court or Judge may think fit to give; and in any such case the referee so selected shall be deemed to be a special referee within the meaning of Section eighty-eight of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925.

(8) Nothing in this Act shall prevent an agreement being made for referring to arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1889, any matter which under this Act is to be determined by the tribunal.

Such an agreement may be contained in the original lease or may be made in writing at any date subsequent to the date of the lease."

Lords Amendment read a Second time.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is the Amendment which deals with the much debated subject of the tribunal, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary dealt with it at some length, I am told, in the observations which he made to the House on the Motion "That the Lords' Amendments be now considered." Everybody knows the difficulty which the House felt in arriving at a decision upon the question of the tribunal which shall be set up under this Bill. The alterations which are proposed to be made by the Amendments are familiar to hon. Members, and my right hon. Friend has explained his reasons for thinking that it is right that this House should agree with the Amendment which the Lords have made. Perhaps, in these circumstances, it will be better that hon. Members should make their criticism on the Amendment rather than that I should attempt to repeat what the Home Secretary has said.

Sir H. SLESSER: The criticism which I have to make of this Amendment is not so much a criticism of the Amendment as a criticism of the Government, and, seeing the manner in which this Amendment has now come before us, I do not think that the matter can be disposed of quite so easily as the learned Gentleman suggests. The Amendment as it now stands is fairly satisfactory. I say "fairly satisfactory" because I would much rather have seen the County Court made the tribunal without any question in small cases, and the High Court made the tribunal in large cases, as was indeed proposed in another House, and it was, I believe, defeated by the casting vote of the Lord Chancellor. That has not been done, and the position in which we find ourselves is that at last, after all these endless labours in Committee, on Report, and on Third Reading—I remember the learned Gentleman was most
indignant with me at suggesting that the Government were introducing an erroneous principle into our legislation, and that what they were doing was inadvisable—at last, the position which the Labour party and a number of Members on the other side of the House have taken up with regard to this tribunal, has been accepted by the Government themselves. I do ask, in order that all this trouble may be avoided on some subsequent occasion, that the Government will take this to heart, and that they will realise that the great feeling, both in this House and in another place, is that in ordinary questions of dispute on legal matters, the proper people to deal with them are the Courts of Law, and not special statutory tribunals.
I am aware of the gibe which is made against Judges and lawyers who take this point of view. It is said that we are asking that the Courts should perform their normal functions in order to increase costs and expenses, or some uncharitable suggestion of that sort. As a matter of fact, in my view, this manner of using the County Court will be very much cheaper to applicants than the proposal that was made. Under the proposal which was formerly before us, the surveyors who were to act as referees under would have to have been paid by the parties. As the matter now stands, cases will go in the ordinary way to the County Court, and that Court will refer it to a referee, and I take it the expenses in such a case will be met, not out of the pockets of the parties, but out of the ordinary expenses of maintaining the County Courts. So far as the question of expenses is concerned, there is nothing in it whatever, nor is there anything in the suggestion which is uncharitably made, and those of us who believe in maintaining the liberty of the subject and object to these statutory tribunals, see no actual prospect of more litigation than exists under the ordinary law.
If I wished to increase litigation, I should send every case to special statutory tribunals. I should have a shoemaker to adjudicate on disputes about boots, and a plumber to adjudicate on disputes about pipes, and so on. I should have a special tribunal in every sort of case. That would immensely increase the cost of litigation. The ungenerous suggestion has been made
that, in objecting to these special statutory bodies, we are moved by personal consideration. As a matter of fact, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) originally suggested this. It is a matter of great importance. The Government have suffered a very crushing defeat. They have stood from first to last for this vicious bureaucratic system, but they have been completely vanquished, and now they come forward with a Measure which my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham advocated on Second Reading. As the Labour party has triumphed in so many matters in this Measure, so they have triumphed in this respect.

Sir P. PILDITCH: I cannot help thinking, as a backer of the Bill and as a believer in the principles of the Bill, that the hon. and learned Member who has just spoken has been ringing the bells to-day, but I fear that he will be wringing his hands to-morrow. If he desires the expense of the administration of this Bill—

Mr. W. THORNE: Are you speaking feelingly?

8.0 p.m.

Sir P. PILDITCH: As a matter of fact, it is recognised that I am, or have been, a member of the professional body from whom these referees may be chosen. I am only one in this House, but my hon. and learned Friend has a lot of friends in the House. I am not saying a word about this particular change in the tribunal from the personal standpoint; I cannot do so, because the members of the profession to which I belong will still receive their fees, so that it is no personal matter at all. If I were going to object to this Amendment to the extent of voting against it, I should say I did so because I thought it is going to bring a much more expensive, and a much slower method of dealing with these matters into play. What are the facts? All questions of fact, as well as of law, may in future go to the County Court. They will have to go to the County Court, and second trials will have to take place if there is any disagreement between the parties as to the report of the referee who has held the inquiry. It is only when both parties are agreed that the County Court can give a decision in the
terms of the report, and, if there has been any difference of opinion between them, there will have to be an inquiry.
Practically the whole of the points to be referred to the tribunal deal with structural alterations, the rent to be charged and matters of that kind, and for the future the tribunals to settle all these is to be the County Court. In many cases, the points will be hypothetical and contingent. And the parties will have a right to go back to the tribunal to have a further hearing. That involves the greatest possible complication. The idea that the Government had and expressed when they brought in this Bill was that there must be an inexpensive method of settling small points which dealt with the facts alone and not with questions of law. I am not going to vote against this New Clause; but I think that what has been done as a result of the insistence of the legal element in this House and the other House will have a prejudicial effect both as regards rapidity of hearing and the expense of the working of this Bill.

Mr. CRAWFURD: I want to say a few words in support of the hon. Member who has just sat down—[HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"] Those who cry "Agreed" are those who have taken a part in the beginning in the defence of the tenant. I think they have made a mistake; I am not sure that, by agreeing to the provision which is now proposed, we are not going to lose three-fourths of the benefit of this Bill for the tenant. The whole point which was made for the efficiency of this Measure was that the tribunal should be accessible, rapid and cheap.
As far as I understood the Bill as we had it before this House originally, the tribunal was to be selected from a panel of professional men, and you had an appeal from it on points of law. Now you have got, first of all, a possibility that, by direction, a case may be taken to the High Court. Then you come back to the County Court. Then you are referred to your professional arbitrator or referee, and, when he has finished, you come to the County Court. Its decision may be argued again in the High Court on a question of law, but not on a question of fact. Therefore, you have the possibility of four arguments on a particular case. How that is to lead to cheapness
of procedure I cannot tell. I only fear that the well-known subserviency of hon. Members above the Gangway to their own Front Bench has led them into the mistake of following the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for South-East Leeds too blindly. I am only concerned for the efficiency of this Bill, and that, when it becomes an Act of Parliament, it should be of some service to the people whom we desire that it shall serve.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I should like to state the case from the point of view of the Town Tenants' League, which has been responsible for the agitation on this question for many years. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir P. Pilditch) said he had been all through in favour of this Bill. Some of us have our doubts about that; but I can say that I have been a consistent supporter of the Bill. In the Town Tenants Bill which was introduced in this House, time and time again a provision was made that should any question arise between landlord and tenant as to compensation or otherwise it should be referred to and determined by a tribunal consisting of the Judge of the County Court in the district in which the case arose and members of the Surveyors' Institute selected from a panel of qualified surveyors.
The reason I am quoting that is that the Clause in that Bill was decided by the council of the Town Tenants' League, who claim to represent something like 300,000 of the shopkeepers in this country. That is their considered opinion. No one can take exception to this Amendment to give effect to the same thing in this Bill. When the tribunal, as suggested in the Bill in the first place, was put before us, we did not object to it because we were happy indeed to receive that part of the Bill and we felt that when the tribunal was set up we would get justice; but nevertheless we do approve of this new Clause. We are satisfied that the tenants will get a fair hearing before the County Court Judges, and I disagree with what has been said as to the procedure being more expensive. If a tenant has a good case and can prove it before the County Court Judge, it will not be expensive for him. It is provided that a case can be dealt with by the Registrar like a small debt case. As far as the smaller tenants are concerned,
whether it is the tribunal as first set up or the County Court which will hear their cases, it will cost money. Organisations such as the Town Tenants' League will have to find funds to get legal advisers to help the smaller tenants, and that will be done. I support the Amendment.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 22, line 25, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 24.—(Interpretation.)

Lords Amendment: In page 23, line 31, at the end, insert
The expression 'landlord' means any person who under a lease is, as between himself and the tenant or other lessee, for the time being entitled to the rents and profits of the demised premises payable under the lease.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is a definition of the word "landlord." Under the Agricultural Holdings Act there was a definition which has been seriously animadverted upon in cases in the Court of Appeal, and by Mr. Justice Atkins in a recent case. The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Withers) is responsible for the definition in the Bill, and the hon. Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson) suggested an Amendment which he thought would be better, and that Amendment has been carefully considered, and we have now got an Amendment which will satisfy all the lawyers.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 23, lines 36 to 38, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 24, line 14, at the end insert:
The expression 'statutory company' means any company constituted by or under an Act of Parliament to construct, work or carry on any gas, water, electricity, tramway, hydraulic power, dock, canal or railway undertaking; and the expression 'public utility company' means any company within the meaning of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, or a society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, 1893 to 1913, carrying on any such undertaking.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment was moved to meet an undertaking which was given to hon. Members opposite, and I think it meets the case.

Lords Amendment: In page 24, line 16, leave out "regulations made by the reference Committee" and insert "County Court Rules."

Consequential Amendment to the Lords Amendment made: After the words last inserted, insert
except that in relation to proceedings before the High Court, it means prescribed by rules of the Supreme Court."—(Sir W. Joynson-Hicks.)

Subsequent Lords Amendment to page 24, line 16, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 25.—(Short title, commencement and extent.)

Lords Amendment: In page 24, line 19, leave out "thirtieth day of

September, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven," and insert "twenty-sixth day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight."

Amendment divided.

So much of the Lords Amendment as proposes to leave out the words ("thirtieth day of September, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven"), agreed to.

So much of the Lords Amendment as proposes to insert the words ("twenty-sixth day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty-eight"), considered.

Amendment to Lords Amendment made: Leave out the word "twenty-sixth," and to insert instead thereof the word "twenty-fifth."—[Sir W. Joynson-Hicks.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, as amended."

Mr. DALTON: I see no grounds whatever for changing the date. The time on this Bill has not been misspent.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 126; Noes, 76.

Division No. 489.]
AYES.
[8.20 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut-Colonel
Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Luce, MaJ.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lumley. L. R.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
McLean, Major A.


Atkinson, C.
Fielden, E. B.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Malone, Major P. B.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Betterton, Henry B.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Margesson, Captain D.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Grotrian, H. Brent
Merriman, F. B.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)


Brittaln, Sir Harry
Harrison, G. J. C.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Haslam, Henry C.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hawke, John Anthony
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Campbell, E. T.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Carver, Major W. H.
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V, L. (Bootle)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Cassels, J. D.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Perring, Sir William George


Christle, J. A.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Clarry, Reginald George
Hills, Major John Waller
Power, Sir John Cecil


Clayton G. C.
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Ramsden, E.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Remer, J. R.


Cope, Major William
Hudson, Capt. A. U.M. (Hackney.N.)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Couper, J. B.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland,Whiteh'n)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hume, Sir G. H.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Davies, Maj, Geo. F.[Somerset,Yeovit)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Rye, F. G.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Dixey, A. C.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Drewe, C.
Lamb, J. Q
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Ellis, R. G.
Long, Major Eric
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Savery, S. S.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L-.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Withers, John James


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Warrender, Sir Victor
Wolmer, Viscount


Smithers, Waldron
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)



Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George
Major the Marquess of Titchfield


Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earr
and Mr. Penny.


Wallace, Captain D. E.




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Gardner, J. P.
Ritson, J.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gosling, Harry
Saklatvala, Shapurjl


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.)
Scurr, John


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hardle, George D.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Sincialr, Major Sir A. (Calthness)


Barnes, A.
Hayes, John Henry
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Barr, J.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhlthe)


Bondfield, Margaret
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Snell, Harry


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stephen, Campbell


Bromley, J.
Kennedy, T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kirkwood, D.
Strauss, E. A.


Buchanan, G.
Lawrence, Susan
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lindley, F. W.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)


Charleton, H. C.
Livingstone, A. M.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cluse, W. S.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Varley, Frank B.


Connolly, M.
March, S.
Viant, S. P.


Cove, W. G.
Maxton, James
Wallhead, Richard C.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Montague, Frederick
Wellock, Wilfred


Dalton, Hugh
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wiggins, William Martin


Day, Colonel Harry
Naylor, T. E.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Dennison, R.
Oliver, George Harold



Dunnico, H.
Palin, John Henry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Fenby, T. D.
Potts, John S.
Whiteley.


Forrest, W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)



Question put, and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with one of their Amendments to the Bill.

Committee nominated of Secretary Sir William Joynson-Hicks, the Solicitor-General, Sir Henry Slesser, Mr. Withers, and Mr. Crawfurd.

Three to be the quorum.

To withdraw immediately.—[Sir W. Joynson-Hicks.]

Reason for disagreeing with Lords Amendments, reported, agreed to.

To be communicated to the Lords.—[Sir W. Joynson-Hicks.]

STANDING ORDERS.

STANDING ORDER NO. 1.—(Sittings of the House.)

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I beg to move, in paragraph 3, line 3, to leave out the word "five," and to insert instead thereof the word "four."
This is the first of a number of Amendments to our Standing Orders which

stand in my name on the Paper. All business connected with the Standing Orders is business that is essential for the House of Commons as a whole, and, when alterations are made in the Standing Orders, the object of such alterations is the greater convenience of the Members of the House. It was brought to my notice in the earlier part of the Session, by a Memorial signed by more than half the Members of the House, drawn from all parties, to the effect that they thought that certain alterations should be made, with regard principally to time and the division of Debate; and I thought that it was a good opportunity to have the whole question of the allocation of time between private Members and the Government examined by a strong Committee of private Members, who might report to the House, and then the House might, as it thought fit, either adopt or decline to adopt their recommendation.

Such a Select Committee was set up, and its terms of reference were as follows:—
That a Select Committee of six Members be appointed to consider the present allocation of time for such public Business, whether Bills or Motions, as is not Government Business, and to report whether any alterations in the Standing Orders relating
to the transaction of such Business are desirable.

I think the House will agree with me that the Committee was a very representative one. Its Chairman was a very old Member of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil), and it also included, from my side of the House, the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland (Sir P. Goff), who had been instrumental in preparing the Memorial to which I have alluded, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wells (Sir R. Sanders), a very old Member of the House, who has been in office and has had a long experience. The official Opposition were represented by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. T. Kennedy), the chief Whip of the party, and the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith), who has been a Member of the House, on and off, for a large number of years. The Liberal party also were represented, and it is quite proper that their representation should be by one of the younger Members of the House, according to length of service, the hon. and gallant Member for Carnarvonshire (Major Owen).

The Amendments on the Paper all represent points on which the Committee were in agreement, I think unanimously, unless it be in one case, to which I shall allude when we come to the Amendment relating to it. The reason why I am asking the House to consider these Amendments this evening is simply that, if the House desire that these alterations in procedure should take effect next Session, the alterations in the Standing Orders must be made before next Session begins, because the first business in a new Session is always the Ballot for Notices of Motion, and if these Amendments are adopted, there will be, an alteration in the Ballot, which I shall describe when we come to that particular Amendment. It may, perhaps, be convenient that I should, if I am in order, say a word on what is included in these Amendments, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary did earlier to-day in describing the Amendments that had come down from another place. It may possibly clarify the discussion that may take place on these Amendments as they are separately moved, and it will, I think, give the House a better picture if they
are not familiar with the Report of the Business are Select Committee.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I think that I ought to take the feeling of the House as to whether, on the first Amendment, there should be a general discussion of all the Amendments.

HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

The PRIME MINISTER: I think that that will be, as the House has indicated, more convenient. The changes are very simple, although the wording of Amendments is always, to the lay mind, rather complicated.
The Amendments to the first three Standing Orders give effect to what has been our annual practice since 1921, namely, the alteration of the times of Friday sittings to eleven to four instead of twelve to five, which are the times stated in the Standing Orders, and were the times until 1921. It has been found in practice that the earlier hours on Fridays are a great convenience to Members of the House, and so it has been that every Session that one particular Motion has been put and carried without discussion or Division; and the Committee think that the time has now come when these hours should be embodied permanently in the Standing Orders, so that it will not be necessary to put that Motion again. The next one deals with the same question.
Then comes a Clause marked "Precedence of business at different sittings." That really is a radical amendment of the existing Standing Order No. 4, and the reason it is put down here as a new Standing Order is that it is so much simpler to put down the old Standing Order No. 4 as it will be when amended, so that hon. Members can see exactly what the new Standing Order will be. Sub-section (d) of this new Order is exactly the same as Sub-section (f) in the old Standing Order No. 4, which will have to be repealed if this new Standing Order is substituted for it, but the earlier part of the new Standing Order gives effect to the following re commendations of the Select Committee, that one whole day, a Wednesday, should be set apart in each week up to Easter, instead of two evenings, and one evening between Easter and Whitsun as at
present; secondly, that on the day when Private Members' Motions have precedence the first Motion should be considered until half-past seven and the second Motion taken after half-past seven—that was a unanimous recommendation—and, thirdly, that two extra Fridays should be given after Whitsuntide to Private Members for the remaining stages of their Bills, and that two of the Fridays now available after Easter for Second Readings should be given to the Government in lieu thereof. That was a recommendation in which the Chairman of the Committee did not concur, but as he is in the House at present, he will doubtless, if desired, give the reasons that animated the Committee when we come to discuss this point.
May I say a word first about the division of time? I have considered very carefully, and have taken some opinion on the matter, though it is entirely open to the House to say the hour they prefer—I have been considering the time named by the Select Committee. My own feeling—and I have long experience as a private Member—is that there is a great deal to be said for half past seven as the hour at which to divide the sittings as against a quarter past eight. A quarter past eight is not an equal division, to begin with, and, secondly, when Government business ends at a quarter past eight it often happens that there is a, string of Divisions, which seriously cut into the time at the disposal of the private Member, or it may be of a, Bill put down by the Chairman of Ways and Means, and I have known occasions when it has been a quarter to nine or even later before the Member can start his discussion. If he has a whole day, it will be very unusual to have more than one Division at the fixed hour, and if the fixed hour is half past seven, you get a perfectly fair division for each private Member's Motion or Bills if they are put down in the evening.
Further, the Committee point out this, and I think there is something in it. It often happens that a, private Member has a Motion which arouses a good deal of public interest, and if the Member who draws the first place in the ballot has an opportunity of bringing in his Motion immediately after Questions, he has a perfectly fresh House—the House does
not want to go to its dinner—and probably a fairly large one, and he may very well get much better consideration and have a better Debate on a Motion at that time than he would get if he did not get in till perhaps half past eight or a quarter to nine. I think that is a very genuine reason. Now hon. Members will see that when they have a whole day taken up, we shall not want the two ballots that we have always had for the two separate evenings, Tuesday and Wednesday, immediately the House assembles after the Recess. You will have one ballot each week, but in that ballot the two people who draw the two first places will get, one the morning part of the day, and the second one the evening. That explains the reason why, if the House thinks fit to make this change, it must be made before the House reassembles. I think that is quite clear. The Committee state—I have had this shown me by my right hon. Friend next to me; I take it from him and I have no doubt the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy will confirm it—that under their changes the amount of time allocated to private Members is practically the same as it was under the old arrangement. There is no real gain in point of time, either to the Government or to private Members. I shall have to give an instance before I sit down where the Government, hoping to make a good job of this, give up three-quarters of an hour of their time, but it does not arise on this. If that is passed, the old Standing Order No. 4 will have to be repealed, because that takes its place.
Then we come to counting out on Friday. This again was an unanimous recommendation of the Committee, that one o'clock p.m. should be substituted for 4 o'clock p.m. as the time at which the House may be counted out on a Friday. The reason for that is this. At present there is no such power. If a Private Member cannot get a House by one o'clock it is extremely unlikely that he will get one at all and it has happened in practice more than once that the House has been counted out but it was impossible to adjourn. Members who were interested stayed hoping a House would be formed, but a House was not formed and the officials and Mr. Speaker and those who were here had to stay till four o'clock before the House could be
adjourned. The Select Committee have reviewed the matter very carefully and taken evidence and they consider it would be a wise precaution, and one for the protection of Members, if some such order were inserted. If Members do not care to come and support a Bill in which they are interested and make a quorum, it is very unfair to keep those who do come, and I think on the other hand it may be some stimulus to Members to realise that if they do not take the pains to come and support their Friends, the whole thing will be lost.
Then we come to Standing Order No. 8. That has to do with Bills set down by the Chairman of Ways and Means and it simply takes out words which, if these Amendments are passed, are unnecessary. Standing Order No. 8 forbids private business being put down on Wednesday between Easter and Whitsuntide. Unofficial Members will no longer have those evenings and that Standing Order is not necessary. The remaining ones merely substitute, in various places in the Standing Order where such substitution is necessary, the time half-past seven in lieu of a quarter-past eight, which is now the dividing time. I think it would be wiser on the whole to keep half-past seven as the dividing hour, not only in these evenings for the private Members but also in the two other cases that arise, that is, for the private Bills put down by the Chairman of Ways and Means and the cases where, with the support of the requisite number of Members, the Adjournment of the House is moved on a definite matter of urgent public importance. For the general benefit of Members, the Government are quite willing to concede on those occasions that extra three-quarters of an hour. That, I think, is a simple explanation of the proposals made by the Committee. I am not quite sure which is the more convenient way, whether to have a short general discussion or for Members to say what they have to say on the Amendments.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I should propose to allow observations on the changes as a whole to be made on the first Amendment.

Mr. T. KENNEDY: I cannot imagine that there will be any prolonged debate
on this Amendment, or, indeed, on the Amendments to the Standing Orders as a whole. I have been asked to say, on behalf of the Opposition, that, as far as we are concerned, we are in complete agreement with the proposed Amendments. The Report of the Committee on which I served was a unanimous Report. I think that, as far as the opportunities and the interests of private Members are concerned both with regard to Motions and to Bills those privileges are completely preserved, and, indeed, improved under the proposed Amendments. In all parts of the House there has been a feeling for a considerable time that the 8.15 Debates on private Members' Motions were quite unsatisfactory from the point of view of the time available, and I think there can be no doubt at all in any part of the House that in future the allocation of a complete day for private Members' Motions will lead to far more satisfactory and far more conclusive discussions. I think also, and hon. Members who have examined the proposals will agree, that there will be far more likelihood of private Members' Bills, especially of a non-controversial character, reaching the Statute Book than there is under the present Standing Orders. As regards the proposals relating to Friday's business, I consider these Amendments as necessary and, indeed, purely formal. For these general reasons, I hope that the House will not only accept the first Amendment but will also agree, without unnecessary debate, to the adoption of the whole of the recommendations of the Committee.

Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: I am glad to be able, on behalf of my party, to say that we thoroughly endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. T. Kennedy) has just said. We are strongly in favour of these Amendments. It has long been felt by private Members that their being curtailed on moving their Motions after 8.15 has reduced the chance of their speeches being quoted and appearing in the Press of the country, and, from that point of view I think it is of very great advantage. The second point is, as has just been said by the previous speaker, that noncontentious Bills introduced into this House will have, under this new arrangement, a real chance of getting on to the Statute Book. There is a third point which is well worth observing. It is, that
under the Amendments, private Members, the unofficial Members, will get just as much time as they have had in the past, and I think the arrangement whereby Motions are to be moved during one day in the week will afford to Members a real chance of getting a fair division of the time with Government business. The Amendments, as far as I can see, are very desirable, and I have much pleasure in supporting them.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In paragraph 5, line 2, leave out the word "five," and insert instead thereof the word "four."—[The Prime Minister.]

STANDING ORDER No. 2.—(Duration of Friday Sittings.)

Amendments made: In line 2, leave out the words "twelve o'clock at noon," and insert instead thereof the words "eleven o'clock."

In line 5, leave out the word "five," and insert instead thereof the word "four."—[The Prime Minister.]

STANDING ORDER No. 3.—(Termination of Friday Sittings.)

Amendment made: In line 2, leave out the word "five," and insert instead thereof the word four."—[The Prime Minister.]

NEW STANDING ORDER.—(Precedence of business at different sittings.)

Unless the House otherwise direct—

(a) Until Easter Government Business shall have precedence at every sitting except the sitting on Wednesday and the sitting on Friday; and at the sitting on Wednesday Notices of Motions and Public Bills, other than Government Bins, shall have precedence of Government Business, and Notices of Motions shall have precedence of the Orders of the Day;
(b) After Easter Government Business shall have precedence at all sittings, except the sittings on the first, second, third and fourth Fridays after Easter Day and the sittings on the third, fourth, fifth and sixth Fridays after Whit Sunday;
(c) At the sittings on Wednesday, when Government Business has not precedence, Mr. Speaker shall at half-past seven of the clock, if the first Motion (other than a Motion for the Adjournment of the House made after the commencement of public business) has not been disposed of, proceed to interrupt the proceedings thereon and
522
such business shall be disposed of as if it were business interupted at eleven o'clock under Standing Order No. 1.
(d) At the sittings on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday the House will first proceed with Unopposed Private Business, Petitions, Motions for unopposed returns, and leave of absence to Members, and giving Notices of Motions.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Order be a Standing Order of the House."—[The Prime Minister.]

Captain BOURNE: There is one short comment I want to make on this proposal to amend the Standing Orders. In moving the first Motion, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that he thought it would be for the convenience of Members generally. In so far as we have one day for Private Members' Motions and the business is interrupted on that day at 7.30, I am perfectly certain he is right, but there is one thing as to which I do not know for certain whether this new Standing Order will be for our convenience. As hon. Members who have sat in this House for a few years are aware, Government time between the opening of the Session and Easter is very largely taken up with necessary financial and other business which must be got through. We must move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair three or four times before the 31st March. We must deal with Supplementary Estimates. We must also have Votes on Account on most of the fighting Services and on the Civil Service, and also before Easter, as a normal rule, pass the Army Annual Bill, with the result that there is very little time left indeed for Government Bills to receive a Second Reading.
As the Prime Minister stated, and I think everybody is agreed, this new Standing Order gives a little more time to private Members, but what I am afraid of is, that this time is given at the expense of Government time before Easter. It will make it very difficult indeed for the Government to get the Second Reading of any important Bills before Easter, and that means that such Bills cannot be sent to the Standing Committees upstairs until later in the Session. Those of us who serve on Standing Committees know how difficult it is in July to get important Measures through in order that they may be reported to the House before the Summer Recess. I do not know
whether, in the allocation of the available time for Government business and Private Members' business, if Private Members' business had been extended a little longer to Whitsuntide, Government business would be facilitated. I have no desire to oppose the Standing Order, because I realise the great advantage to the House, but I urge on all those who are responsible to try to permit one or two of the most important Government Measures to receive a Second Reading before Easter, so that the Committees upstairs may be able to consider them without being hustled, and may give full time to their consideration. What is equally important is that these Bills should go to another place in ample time to allow it to fulfil its functions as a revising Chamber.

Mr. E. BROWN: If I remember correctly, this Amendment raises a point on which the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) found himself unable to agree with the majority of the Committee. I should like to know whether his point has been met, because I understand he drew a distinction between any new legislation which was controversial, and that which was non-controversial in private Members' Bills. The point is important, and I am not quite clear as to why the Noble Lord disagreed with his colleagues, or whether the Amendment on the Order Paper is a compromise which will effect the view which the Noble Lord expressed in Committee. I should like to have a word from some Member of the Committee as to the distinction between these two classes of Bills, and the effect of the proposed Standing Order.

Sir R. SANDERS: In the absence of the Noble Lord, perhaps I may be allowed as a Member of the Committee to say a few words. I do not think that the difference between the Noble Lord and the other Members of the Committee at all affects the Motion now before the House. I do not know how far it is the custom to reveal what takes place in a Committee of that sort, but I do not think I am breaking any confidence in saying that the difference between the Noble Lord and the other Members of the Committee was on the question mentioned by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), namely, that where Bills
were non-controversial they should have precedence when they came down to this House for the later stages. We considered that point and, although I do not think it would be wise for me to go into the reasons, we came to the conclusion that the proposal which the Noble Lord made, although possibly in some ways desirable, was not practicable, and consequently we did not include it in the recommendations which we made to the House.

Resolved, "That this Order be a Standing Order of the House."

STANDING ORDER No. 4.—(Precedence of business at different Sittings.)

The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move, "That the Standing Order be repealed."

Mr. TINKER: I heard the Prime Minister say that the Committee were unanimous on this particular point, and I am somewhat diffident in raising an objection to it, but I think the time given for the commencement of business—

Mr. DEPUTY -SPEAKER: I do not know whether the House will allow the hon. Member to raise this point. Strictly speaking, the Motion now before the House is merely consequential on the other which has been passed.

Mr. TINKER: I am speaking in respect of the new Standing Order to follow Standing Order No. 24.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I would not like to rule too strictly, but on a strict ruling the hon. Member is not in order in raising the point here.

Mr. TINKER: I am trying to deal with the question of the new Standing Order following Standing Order 24, with regard to the One o'Clock Rule in connection with a count on Friday.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Motion before the House is that Standing Order No. 4 be repealed.

Mr. TINKER: It was my mistake.

NEW STANDING ORDER to follow STANDING ORDER No. 24.—(Counting out, Fridays.)

On Fridays the House shall stand adjourned if at any time after One of the
Clock on the House being counted it shall appear that forty Members are not present.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Order be a Standing Order of the House."—[The Prime Minister.]

9.0 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Standing Order, to leave out the word "One" and to insert instead thereof the word "Twelve."
I object to the proposed new Standing Order because I think, in view of the time that the House meets, a period of two hours is too long to allow before a count can be effective. I think that when the House commences if we cannot get 40 Members present and a count takes place, the House ought to stand adjourned. To give two hours is too long. There might be something said for a little time to be given, although I do not agree with that. If time is to be given, I suggest that if we allow until 12 o'clock and we cannot then get 40 Members present, the House ought to stand adjourned.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Does any hon. Member second the Amendment?

Amendment not seconded.

Resolved, "That this Order be a Standing Order of the House."

STANDING ORDER NO. 8.—(Time for taking Private Business.)

Amendments made:

In line 2, leave out from the word "Friday" to the end of paragraph (1).

In line 12, leave out the words "a quarter-past eight," and insert instead thereof the words "half-past seven."—[The Prime Minister.]

STANDING ORDER NO. 10.—(Motion for Adjournment on matter of urgent public importance.)

Amendment made: In line 20, leave out the words "a quarter-past eight," and insert instead thereof the words "half- past seven."—[The Prime Minister.]

STANDING ORDER No. 49a.—(Adjourn- ment of the House (Standing Committees).)

Amendment made: In line 13, leave out the words "a quarter-past eight," and
insert instead thereof the words "half-past seven."—[The Prime Minister.]

STANDING ORDER No. 207 (PRIVATE BUSINESS).—(Second or Third Read- ing to be postponed when opposed.)

Amendment made: In line 10, leave out the words "a quarter-past eight," and insert instead thereof the words "half-past seven."—[The Prime Minister.]

Ordered, That the Standing Orders, as amended, be printed.

SUPERANNUATION AND OTHER TRUST FUNDS (VALIDATION) BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Rule against perpetuities not to apply to registered funds.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. D. HERBERT: I do not wish to detain the House or to waste time, but this is a Bill which passed its Second Reading last night under conditions when there were very few Members in the House who knew what was being called, and it appears to me that it is a Bill on which we should have a certain amount of explanation. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will take the opportunity whilst we are going through the Bill in Committee to give us some reasons for this Bill, which proposes to make—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member should have raised this matter last night. We are now on Clause I in Committee.

Mr. HERBERT: I should have confined myself to Clause I, which deals with a very important rule of law, and proposes to make a very big change in it. Incidentally, straying out of order, I have no doubt indicated that I was anxious for information on other parts of the Bill as well, but that will be as the various Clauses come along. But if the Financial Secretary on this important Clause can give us some general indication as to the
objects and intentions of the Bill it will be very useful.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): I can broadly give the reasons for the Bill. Under Section 52 of the Finance Act, 1921, following the recommendations of the Royal Commission, certain funds were exempted from the payment of Income Tax on the ground that they were of a benevolent nature. These funds were for purposes of superannuation funds, widows and orphans funds, or pension funds; but they have to conform to certain rules laid down by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and then, having conformed therewith, they are exempted from Income Tax. Certain trustees of funds, in seeking to obtain this exemption, put their funds in order and made certain adjustments. In doing so one of them, the Telegraph Construction Company, found that there was a question about a Clause in their Trust Deed which might or might not offend the law against perpetuity. The hon. Gentleman the Solicitor-General can explain the law of perpetuity better than I, but it is a rule of law which prevents a fund being held up for a longer period than a specified number of years. The Telegraph Construction Company, in order to see whether its funds were in order, took out an originating summons—

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is it in Order for an hon. Member to ask for an explanation on a point and then immediately leave the Committee?

The CHAIRMAN: It is certainly not out of order.

Mr. D. HERBERT: The hon. Member has not left the House.

Mr. SAMUEL: The Telegraph Construction Company took out a friendly summons and the case was heard by Lord Justice Russell on the 29th March, 1894, who held that it was clear that these trust funds—

Mr. KIRKWOOD: We will accept it as read.

HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 (Qualifications for registration of funds), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Registration.)

The CHAIRMAN: Sub-section (6) of this Clause as printed in the Bill in brackets and underlined raises a question of privilege, and those in charge of the Bill must move it is an Amendment.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 3, line 19, at the end, to insert the words:
(6) Such fees shall be payable in respect of the registration of funds, amendments of rules and changes of name or address, and in respect of the issue of certificates under this Act as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Treasury.
I am sorry this Sub-section which has to be moved into the Bill was not on the Order Paper, but hon. Members, I hope, will accept my apology and allow me to move this new Sub-section. It provides the machinery which enables costs to be charged in order to pay the expenses of making these superannuation funds exempt.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 (Power on registration of funds to delete provisions for avoiding the rule against perpetuities), 5 (Accounts and reports of registered funds), 6 (Supplementary provisions as to powers of registrar), 7 (Penalties for defaults), and 8 (Interpretation), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 9.—(Validation of trust funds for the reduction of National Debt.)

The CHAIRMAN: Clause 9, as printed in the Bill in brackets and underlined, is also a privileged Clause and cannot be taken at this point. If those in charge of the Bill wish it to be inserted, it must be moved as a new Clause after the Clauses of the Bill have been taken.

Clauses 10 (Reports to Parliament) and 11 (Short title and extent), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE 9.—(Validation of trust funds for the reduction of National Debt.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause carries out the second purpose of the Bill. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has mentioned the law against perpetuities, and this Clause is to exempt from the law against perpetuities a benevolent fund in order that it may accumulate for a longer time than the law against perpetuity allows and that it may in the end be used to pay off the National Debt.

Mr. D. HERBERT: This is rather an important matter. Nobody will quarrel with the proposal of a benevolent person to assist in reducing the National Debt, and we must take this as being a serious proposal if the Government consider it necessary to deal with it in this way. It would have been interesting if the Solicitor-General could have told us the number of years over which it is proposed that these funds should be accumulated. There is a certain danger in this. This Clause is not one which proposes to deal with this one particular case, but it proposes to allow anybody, as long as the ultimate object of the trust is the reduction of the National Debt, to provide for the accumulation of any sum of money for any length of time. I should propose to move—I do not know whether the Government would offer any objection—to put in some limit as to the amount or the number of years. Let hon. Members realise that if a few benevolent people make trusts of various sums of money, amounting in all to a sum of £1,000,000, and if these trusts continued for 105 years it would amount to no less a sum than £256,000,000.
The danger there is that you have funds managed by trustees who are not under the control of the Government, who, incidentally, I may point out, may receive large sums themselves by way of remuneration as trustees. I think the Solicitor-General will agree that it would be quite possible for an individual to make use of this Clause very largely for the benefits of members of his own family, who would be trustees of it instead of the Commissioners of the National Debt. Having every sympathy with the object of the Clause, I think it has been drafted rather hurriedly and widely and that the Committee should seriously consider
whether there should not be some limitation put upon it. I suggest two possible Amendments, one to limit the amount and, secondly, to limit the period over which it may be accumulated. I seriously suggest that a period of 50 years or 60 years at the outside would be sufficient.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I think that my hon. Friend's fears are not well founded. The Clause provides for complete control in those untoward events which my hon. Friend has outlined.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

SCHEDULE.—(Requirements as to Rules of Registered Funds.)

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: I beg to move, in page 7, to leave out from the word "that," in line 15, to the word "with," in line 19, and to insert instead thereof the words:
the rules of a fund may provide for the deposit of such moneys with a bank, and may also provide for their deposit.
I understand that this Amendment is agreed to.

Mr. SAMUEL: The Amendment seems perfectly reasonable, and I have pleasure in accepting it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 7, to leave out from the word "established," in line 22, to the end of line 23, and to insert instead thereof the words:

"in the following cases, that is to say—

(a) where the rules so provided before the ninth day of November, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven;
(b) where the deposit of such moneys is authorised subject to the conditions that every employer with whom such moneys are deposited must be a body corporate having during each of the ten years last past before the date of any deposit paid a dividend or interest at a rate of not less than 3 per cent. on its ordinary shares, and that every such deposit must be secured by a charge on the whole or part of the assets of the undertaking carried on by such employer."—[Mr. A. V. Alexander.]

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

INDIAN CHURCH BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Earl Winterton.]

Sir CHARLES OMAN: We are now handing over the Church of England in India to the autonomous government of an extraordinarily mixed body, a body consisting very largely of newly-made Christian converts of extremely primitive classes and races, a very large body of Eurasians, and a minority of English-born and English-domiciled subjects of the Realm. At the present time, the whole of this very mixed body has a certain amount of solidity in its organisation by depending on the See of Canterbury. The proposal is that it shall be handed over to governance by a Church that is being rapidly Indianised. There are already a number of Bishops of native Indian extraction, although the majority are still, I believe, European-born British subjects. It is contemplated, I understand, that gradually the whole of the Episcopate, or a very large majority of the Episcopate, shall be Indian-born, that is to say, that several scores of thousands of Eurasian English-speaking people and some tens of thousands of persons with their domicile in England, English-born people, will be handed over to the governance of an Indian-organised Church in which the Indian element will have a large majority. I must confess that I do not look forward with equanimity to the religious management of tens of thousands of English and half-English members of the Church of England by a purely Indian Episcopate. The strength of this Church is not more than half a million, of whom the majority are very recent Indian converts, and I cannot look with equanimity upon those scattered bodies of English all over India and the Eurasians in India being handed over to purely native Governments.
The whole plan does not appeal to me. All through history the Eastern Churches have fallen into strange habits. I need only remind the House of the strange history of the Abyssinian Church, of the dreadful story of the Taiping soi-disant
Christian Church in China, of the so-called Ethiopian Church in South Africa. At the present moment the majority of the Bishops in India are English Bishops and there is no danger. But I do not think that at the present moment, when there is practically a very small educated laity and when it cannot be said that there is a learned Indian clergy either, the whole management of this Church in India should be handed over to Indians in a few years. The learned and educated Indian Christian classes, which we hope will come into existence as the ages roll on, are not in existence at the present moment. You have as yet neither got a learned Indian clergy nor an educated Indian laity. Is it safe to cut this little Church away from all its legal connections with Canterbury and with England and allow it to manage for itself? I do not intend to press this to a Division, but I desire to make my solemn protest.

Mr. E. BROWN: The hon. Member ought to be reminded that there is a passage in the Epistles which says that a Christian Church is a church
Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free.
A reflection upon that passage, to say nothing of others, would have tempered the very reactionary and unchristian observations we have heard as to the Church in China.

Sir C. OMAN: I was talking not of the existing Church in China but of the so-called religion of the Taipings in China whose leader claimed to represent one of the persons of the Trinity.

Mr. BARR: I would like to say that the arguments used by the hon. Gentleman would equally be against giving any method of control or self-government to native races. He argues that they need to be learned. So far as I understand, those who managed the church in the beginning were unlearned and ignorant men and, according to him, they ought never to have had self-government at all.

Sir C. OMAN: Does he say that St. Paul was an unlearned and ignorant man?

HON. MEMBERS: St. Peter was!

Mr. BARR: It is not learning that counts for so much in the church and it is not always the most learned men who are the most advanced in politics or otherwise. The great idea of the churches with which I am acquainted is to foster among their young converts the ideas of responsibility and self-government and I think that in that way you are building up a stronger church than if you manage it from England or Canterbury. It is better to give to the people who are brought into the Christian faith some share in managing their own affairs.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): Although I agree with everything that has been said by the hon. Gentleman opposite, I do not think the statements of my hon. Friend the Member of Oxford University (Sir C. Oman) should be allowed to go uncontradicted from the Government Bench. He talks about primitive classes and races in India in the Church. I do not know if he applies that term to the Bishops of Calcutta and of Bombay. He seems ignorant too of the fact that this was accepted by 87 votes to two in the Assembly in India and unanimously by the Assembly here. There is still going to be a union with the Church of England, it is not going to be cut off from Canterbury at all, it is merely the legal union that is affected. If I had more time nothing would have given me more pleasure than to have advanced some other arguments.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL. [Lords.]

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

MEDICAL AND DENTISTS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL. [Lords.]

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

COLONIAL PROBATES (PRO- TECTED STATES AND MAN- DATED TERRITORIES) BILL. [Lords.]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Extension of Colonial Pro- bates Act, 1892, to certain, protected States and mandated territories.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): As this Bill passed its Second Reading without explanation, I should like to state briefly that the original Colonial Probate Act was passed in 1892, when there were no mandated territories, and the Bill becomes necessary, in view of the mandated territories, so as to assimilate the law as to the administration of probate. At that time also there were only protectorates, but there is now one group of protected States in the Empire in the Federated Malay States, and as they are protected States and not protectorates, the original Act would not apply to them. It is part of the object of the Bill to deal with that matter.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 (Short title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

NURSING HOMES (REGISTRATION) BILL.

Lords Amendment considered accordingly.

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 3, at the end, insert new Sub-section:
(4) For the purposes of the powers of the Minister under the provisions of this
Section, the Minister may at all reasonable times inspect any nursing home to which this Section applies, and may refuse exemption or withdraw an exemption on the ground that as regards the home the provisions of paragraphs (a), (b) or (e) of the proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of this Act are not complied with.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I am sorry that this Amendment is in manuscript form, but that is owing to the pressure which always occurs at the end of a Session. This is a manuscript Amendment moved in another place, and I understand that my Noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal explained that he had had no opportunity of consulting me and that his assent to it must be considered to be subject to my subsequent assent. The Clause to which this Amendment relates was inserted in the Bill on the Report stage, and is a Clause under which certain institutions known as Christian Science houses were excluded from the operation of the Bill. I ask the House to disagree with the Amendment because it places upon the Ministry of Health the responsibility for the inspection of these houses. These houses are not nursing homes as we understand the term, and I do not desire that the Ministry of Health should take any responsibility for them. This Amendment would put that responsibility upon the Ministry, and I feel that to accept it would be to stultify the whole constitution of the Clause which was admitted to the Bill on Report.

Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their Amendment to the Bill.

Committee nominated of Mr. Chamberlain, Sir Kingsley Wood, Mr. Ernest Brown, Mr. R. Young and Dr. Vernon Davies.

Three to be the quorum.

To withdraw immediately.—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Reason for disagreeing to Lords Amendment reported and agreed to.

To be communicated to the Lords.—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

ROAD TRANSPORT LIGHTING BILL.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 1.—(Obligatory lights to be carried by vehicles at night.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 4, leave out "Section" and insert "Act."

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a drafting Amendment which is consequent on certain other changes made in the Bill.

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 14, leave out from "in" to the end of paragraph (b) and insert, "places specially set aside for the purpose."

Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I do so on the ground that this Amendment carries out a promise which I made in Committee to enable certain regulations to be made which could not otherwise be made.

Lords Amendment: In page 2, lines 20 and 21, leave out "or grant exemption (whole or partial) from."

Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment ought to appeal to hon. Members because it curtails the power of the Minister of Transport to make regulations.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 6, line 4, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 24, insert

NEW CLAUSE A.—(Regulations as to reflectors.)

"A. The Minister may if he thinks fit by Regulations prescribe the conditions with which reflectors carried on vehicles in
accordance with the provisions of this Act or of any Regulations made thereunder must comply and the position and manner in which they are to be attached."

Lords Amendment read a Second time.

Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. E. BROWN: It is unfortunate that we should have to discuss these Amendments under these circumstances, as the Amendments are not on the Paper, and I think we ought to have an explanation of this one.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Some of us have granted a fair amount of licence to the Government to take their business to-day unopposed, because we wanted to raise one or two questions on the Motion for the Adjournment. As some of us have acquiesced in that arrangement, it is unfair for the Government to take 40 Lords Amendments and thus deprive us of valuable time.

Colonel ASHLEY: I do not wish to treat the House with any discourtesy, and I would not dream of trying to put Amendments through without discussion which were really of substance, but I can assure hon. Members that these are really drafting Amendments. It is within the recollection of the House that there was no Report stage of this Bill in the House of Commons, and therefore we were not able to do the tidying-up that is always done on that stage, and it had to be done in another place. As to the point raised by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Brown), this new Sub-section gives power to the Minister to prescribe the form of red reflector which shall be carried, and I think the House will agree that it is necessary that the Minister should have power to prescribe the reflectors that are to be put on these vehicles, so as to see that they are efficient and that they carry out the purposes for which they are to be used. It is not right or proper that any sort of reflector should be allowed to be put on vehicles, and we are, in the last Amendment but one, asking the House to agree to postpone the coming into operation of this Bill till 22nd April, which is Summer Time, in order to give time for us to make Regulations and to enable reflectors to be made according to the Regulations,
and the people concerned to put those reflectors on their vehicles.

CLAUSE 13.—(Application.)

Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 18, after the word "to," insert "railway locomotives, carriages, and trucks, or to."

Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a simple Amendment to say that when railway locomotives and carriages happen to be on public roads, as they are in a few cases, this Bill will not apply to them, because they are under the Railway Acts and are obliged to carry certain lights in certain positions.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 15.—(Short title, commence- ment, and extent.)

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 16, leave out "first" and insert "twenty-second."

Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is the Amendment to put off the operation of the Bill till 22nd April, so as to give time for the necessary arrangements to be made.

Mr. E. BROWN: Between now and that date, will the right hon. Gentleman see the various bodies concerned as to the type of reflector to be used, especially on slow-moving horse vehicles?

Colonel ASHLEY: If the hon. Member cares to bring any deputation to see me, naturally I shall be glad to receive them.

Mr. B. SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider hearing deputations from anybody who wishes to complain of the incidence of the Bill at all?

Colonel ASHLEY: We are now dealing with the date on which the Bill is to come into operation, but naturally, if the hon. Member wishes to come and see me, I shall be glad to see him.

Mr. SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman extend that privilege to all sections who may be aggrieved as to the incidence of the Bill?

Colonel ASHLEY: Of course, there must be a limit to the number of deputations I can receive.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

SCHEDULE.—(Enactments repealed.)

Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 4, insert:


"32 amp; 33 Vict.c. 115
The Metropolitan Public Carriage Act, 1869.
In Section nine the restriction numbered (3)."

Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is simply repealing a Section of a certain Act which is now unnecessary.

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882, to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of part of the rural district of Newbury, in the county of Berks, and part of the rural district of Kingsclere, in the county of Southampton, which was presented on the 29th day of November, 1927, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the rural district of Whitehaven, in the county of Cumberland, which was presented on the 7th day of December, 1927, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the rural district of Knaresborough, in the West Riding of the county of York, which was presented on the 6th day of December, 1927, be approved,

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and
confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the rural district of Ampthill, in the county of Bedford, which was presented on the 7th day of December, 1927, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the urban district of Billingeand-Winstanley and Orrell, in the county palatine of Lancaster, which was presented on the 7th day of December, 1927, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919 in respect of the city of Ripon and part of the rural district of Ripon, in the West Riding of the county of York, and part of the rural district of Wath, in the North Riding of the county of York, which was presented on the 6th day of December, 1927, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the rural districts of Cuckfield and Chailey, in the administrative county of East Sussex, which was presented on the 7th day of December, 1927, be approved."—[Colonel Ashley.]

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

QUESTIONS OF ADMINISTRATION SCOTLAND.

Whereupon, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the Order of the House of 8th November, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

10.0 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I wish to raise one or two matters in regard to two questions which I put to the Secretary for Scotland to-day. The first one has reference to my own division, but deals with the question of Glasgow generally. For some considerable time, in fact over a period of years, the Glasgow Education Authority and the Scottish Education Department have been considering school
accommodation in Glasgow. The city has been extending, new houses have been built, and both the Education Department and the local authority have had to consider new school accommodation for the new area; but alongside that has been the other problem of Glasgow school accommodation, because for the whole of the War period no new school was provided for the thickly populated areas, and certain schools have become insanitary and unsuitable, and not schools that ought to be maintained by a local authority. The consequence has been that I have questioned the Secretary for Scotland on many occasions with regard to school accommodation. I agree with the Secretary of State that we are up against one problem, but I do not agree that that problem is anything like so acute as the Secretary for Scotland would admit. In the past, the excuse has been that building trade labour has not been available, but that cannot hold good now, seeing that the Education Department and the local authority have agreed to go on with a school building programme. In answer to a question I put to him, the right hon. Gentleman gave me a list of 20 schools which it is proposed to build in Glasgow. To-day, I asked him why my division, the Gorbals Parliamentary area of Glasgow, was to be the only division where not a single school was to be built; and in reply he said that I was mistaken in thinking that Gorbals was the only area, and he said that Calton and Camlachie were two other places. I first of all deny that, but it is rather peculiar that he should give Calton and Camlachie because both of these places are similar to Gorbals, and are thickly populated areas. It is a shocking scandal that the well-to-do areas, even if his statements are correct, are to get all the new school accommodation and that none of the thickly populated, congested districts are to get any new schools at all. I have been over his list, and I find that every Parliamentary Division in Glasgow is in the new building programme, with the one exception of Gorbals, and I want to put it to him that it is not good enough. I am not denying the right of Pollok and Govanhill to new schools, or the right of the other divisions. All I ask is that my division, in relation to the general
Glasgow problem, ought to be considered at least equal with them.
I want to raise another point with regard to school accommodation. There is one school in my Division, and I would forgive him the others if he would try to tackle it. I have raised the question of Greenside School many times. For a long period this school has been, for educational purposes, a condemned school. It is situated against the railway main line between Glasgow and London. In addition, it has got practically no playground. I do not criticise the right hon. Gentleman for being associated with the movement for open spaces and playing fields, and yet at this school there is practically no playground. Other schools have side streets where the children can play. This school is right adjacent to the main street. There used to be lanes and alleys adjoining, then there were stables. It was bad enough when stables were near the school, but the position of the children has become 50 times worse because motor garages have taken the place of the stables, and the children cannot play even in the street because of the motor traffic. When I hold election meetings in the Division, we only go to the school when we can go to no other place. It is totally unsuitable even for a Gorbals election meeting, and there can be no greater condemnation than that. My electors are as good as the electors of any other Division. The Secretary of State cannot deny that the new districts are all going to get subsidised houses and national money, and in addition to having the best of houses, they are going to have the best of schools. Our people in a way need the best schools more than the others do, because we are confined to narrow cribbed homes, and the children get little or no air.
The first consideration in regard to schools should not be the well-to-do areas, not the areas with good houses, but the areas where housing is bad and the need for school accommodation is greater. If we can do nothing else, at least Green-side School can claim the right hon. Gentleman's attention. It is a shocking school, and indefensible from the educational point of view, from the sanitary point of view, and from the children's point of view. It is a crime and a disgrace that it should be tolerated any
longer, and I hope the Secretary for Scotland will at least take action with the Glasgow education authority to see that even the poor districts should get something like equality of treatment with the others.
I turn to another question. In my Division, unfortunately, I have sometimes to raise questions in reference to people who appear before the Courts. I shall not criticise the judgment of any Courts; but I would like to refer to what is a serious question in Glasgow. A boy living in my Division has committed three or four offences. They are not crimes in the real sense of the word; he has done nothing that would make anyone poorer; he seems to be always associated with the taking of pigeons. I am not defending the boy; but I distinguish between his offences and what I may call "sneaking" crimes. It is true that on two or three occasions he has broken into stables and stolen pigeons, and I am not defending that, but he has perhaps a little more waywardness than other boys. Some time ago, he lost his leg through an accident. He appears before the Sheriff charged with the terrible offence of breaking into a place, and he pleads guilty, and the Court turns round and inflicts on this one-legged boy, this comparatively poor boy, this boy who has had this rough time of it, a sentence of six stripes with the birch rod. It is duly carried out, and within two months of the sentence being carried out, the boy has had to be removed to the Rushill Institution.
I understand that the Secretary of State for Scotland, in his reply, said that this boy's removal to the Rushill Institution had nothing to do with the punishment meted out to the boy. I deny that; and while I have no doubt that certain medical people will back the Secretary for Scotland. I, nevertheless, within my mind, think it is unchallengable and beyond question that these six stripes of the birch rod on a one-legged boy have had a serious effect on his general physical make-up. The Secretary for Scotland may try to say that it may not be the direct consequence of his removal to Rushill, but there is no denying that the boy's physical standard is deteriorating, and the effect on his future has been considerably diminished by this carrying out
of the sentence of six stripes. I understand that it is laid down by Statute that, wherever the Sheriff decides that this is to be done, before the sentence can be carried out, it is the duty of the authorities to see that this boy is properly examined and medically fit. I want the Secretary for Scotland to say whether this boy was medically examined, who was the medical authority, and at what time did he pass this one-legged boy after receiving this term of imprisonment? To treat such a boy in that way appears to me to be shocking, and I hope the House of Commons will ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he intends to take any future action in this matter.

Mr. STEPHEN: I want to take a few minutes in raising another case. Some time ago, I wrote about a young man named David Walker, who was sentenced at the Dumbarton Sheriff Court in February last to 15 days' hard labour for house-breaking. I was informed by the Secretary for Scotland that there were three previous convictions against this young man. In those cases, I sometimes consult a friend of mine who is a solicitor, and when I told him that the parents of the young man denied that there were three previous convictions, he said to me that he did not think that that was possible. He thought there was a very great accuracy with regard to the labelling of a prisoner. Afterwards, the parents sent to me certificates to show that, while this young man was said to be guilty of these convictions, he was actually on the "Empress" training ship at the time. I took the matter up further with the Secretary for Scotland, and he informed me there was a mistake made in connection with this case in the method of previous convictions against this young man when he was tried in connection with this offence. Really there was only one previous conviction. It was said in the Court that it was up to the agent or the prisoner concerned to have given notice beforehand that they contested the statement about three previous convictions. Evidently a mistake was made, and after the case was heard and the prisoner was found guilty it was stated that that was the time to have challenged the three convictions. I know it was said that the fact that the boy had had three previous convictions against him was not taken into account at the trial.
It has been stated that this young man had embarked upon a sea of crime. If a young man is before a Court for a second offence how can it be said that he has embarked upon a sea of crime? I am aware that the Sheriff substitute stated, in a communication to the Secretary of State for Scotland, that the convictions were not taken into account, but we all know that it is part of the criminal procedure that previous convictions must be taken into account, and that fact must have been before the Sheriff substitute when the sentence of 18 months was passed. I know that the sentence has been reduced by three months. We have to be thankful for small mercies, and I suppose we ought to be thankful that there has been a reduction of the sentence in this case. I suggest that there should be a fuller consideration of this case. There was also an older person concerned in this case who was sentenced to six months imprisonment, whereas in the case of the young boy the sentence was 18 months. I suggest that there should be a reconsideration of this case with a view to a further remission of the sentence.
After all, at this season of the year, seeing that there has been a serious mistake in connection with this case it would only be fair, now that six months of this sentence has been served, if the Secretary of State for Scotland ordered the release of this young man. This would give assurance to people that in connection with the administration of the law, when a mistake has been proved to have taken place, the most generous view would be taken in dealing with the circumstances. After this young man had been released from the training ship evidently he got a bit wild and had a conviction registered against him. On the other hand I would like to point out that he got an excellent certificate for good conduct from the authorities connected with the training ship, dated the 8th December, 1916, in which it was stated that his character was very good, and that he was a willing and a hard working lad.
Some of the agents in these cases have so many of them to deal with, all the persons are so poor, and the time is so limited, that a mistake may be made on their part, just as a mistake has been made by the authorities. The mistake
originally was made by the authorities, and, if a mistake was then made by the defence in rebutting the mistake made by the authorities, I hope that the Secretary of State is going to take a generous view. That would mean that one would have the assurance that, when mistakes are made, the persons who are finally responsible are very anxious to do what they can. I think it cannot be contested that, when a prisoner conies before a Judge, and it is stated that he has had three previous convictions, the Judge is bound to consider that. It would come into his mind, and would affect his judgment in the case. I hope that, as a result of my raising this matter here tonight, I shall be able to get some concession. The parents of this young man have approached me in regard to the matter. They are very greatly concerned, and I am sure that, if this young man is given another chance, the influence of his parents and the experience through which he has passed will have such a result that the Secretary of State, myself and everyone else will be pleased, and that a better attempt will be made by this young man to order his life aright. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to make some concession.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) raised the question of school accommodation in Glasgow, and more particularly the problem as it concerns his own constituency and the particular school of Greenside. I should like the hon. Member to believe that this problem of the school accommodation in Glasgow is one which has received, and continues to receive, the very careful consideration of the education authority in Glasgow. That authority is a representative body, and it has, of course, to look at this question, not so much from the point of view of this or that political constituency, but from the broad outlook of the general educational facilities of the City. The hon. Member was perfectly fair and just when, in putting his case, he said that he agreed that that had been done, and that the problem of the shifting population and the changing circumstances of the City were matters which had to be taken into consideration.
With regard to this particular school, the Greenside School, everyone who has
had to deal with this problem has admitted that this school is not up to the standard which is demanded in really modern schools. I am the first to agree with the hon. Member that, in particular, the amount of space available for playing fields is not sufficient. That, of course, is unfortunately the case. On the other hand, I think that we may exaggerate the evil conditions of this particular instance. One thing is quite clear, that the school population in that district has been falling, and while one recognises that the size of some of the classes in some of the schools in Glasgow exceeds the numbers that are desirable, it is a fact that in this case the numbers are not excessive in any one of the classes. Accommodation in the school is more than sufficient to meet the circumstances and needs of the population. That it is in a noisy district I admit at once, but at least two of the noisiest rooms in the school have, I understand, been disused for educational purposes and are only used for temporary and recreative purposes or for feeding.
I should like to be able to say that all bad schools that do not come up to the modern standard are going to be abolished immediately, but the hon. Member knows, and the House knows, and the ratepayers know very well that that is not a thing possible of attainment at once. Both I and my Department are anxious to see the improvement and the development of the schools in the city, but it is obvious that the primary duty of the education authority must be to provide schools in those districts where schools do not exist and to meet the growing requirements of the expanding city. I am also assured that they have improved the internal condition of this school. From every point of view, while I sympathise with the hon. Member in his desire to see this improvement made, I am forced to the conclusion that there are things of greater urgency from the broad educational view and that the actual conditions that exist in this school as to numbers and accommodation are better than in many other schools, which may be in more favourable surroundings, I agree, but in so far as the actual size of the classrooms and the number of children is concerned, the conditions are in this case satisfactory. If we can do anything
to improve the conditions of the playground I will undertake to have that investigated and see whether anything can be done in that way.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will you come down and see the school in the Recess?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Certainly I will take an early opportunity of seeing for myself.

Mr. MacLAREN: You had better take a bottle of perfume with you.

Sir J. GILMOUR: No; I know Glasgow well enough. Then I was asked with regard to the case of Thomas Lennie. This youth was convicted of theft. It was a case in which a good deal of damage had been done in making an entry to the premises where the theft took place, and I find myself in this difficulty. The hon. Member says this was not a case of what he calls a sneak thief. I perhaps might have a certain element of agreement with a statement of that kind, but, if that is so, what alternative would there be to the Court in dealing with a case like this? He could not be given the benefit of the First Offenders Act. The Court, therefore, would have been obliged, as an alternative to what they did, to send him to some institution. As I understand it, one of the things which moved the Court was that this boy's mother particularly asked that that course should not be taken. Six strokes of the birch may appear a very serious thing. I suppose there are not many of us who have not in our public school career received punishment, and I myself admit to having received certainly that and possibly more.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: You know that the birch is a different thing altogether.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have the fullest recollection of the circumstances. I am bound to say I think that in all the circumstances no harm was done. Let me come to the point. Of course, it is true that this youth had only one leg. He bad lost a leg, so I am informed, I think, at the age of something like four years. He is now 13. At any rate, he lost a leg some time ago. It is not a recent loss.

Mr. BUCHANAN: It is within a couple of years.

Sir J. GILMOUR: The exact date I do not know. At any rate, quite clearly in all these cases the Court is required to provide for a medical examination, and I am assured by the sheriff, whose report I asked for, that this boy was medically examined. The punishment was inflicted, and it was not until a considerable time afterwards that he came under observation from a health point of view. It was first of all assumed, on the primary examination, that this boy might be suffering from something like tuberculosis. He was carefully examined, and it was found that there was nothing of the sort, and that beyond the fact that he had a slight enlargement of the heart there was really nothing wrong with the boy at all. I believe, having ascertained that the proper inspection and medical examination were carried out, that there was no real harm inflicted upon him and that, indeed, it was to his advantage that that kind of method should be adopted rather than that he should be sent at this period into a home of detention. I think that, on consideration, it will be found that no great injury has been done to him. I hope quite the reverse.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Camlachlie (Mr. Stephen) raised the case of David Walker. This case is one upon which inquiry was made, and, as I was approached on the first occasion, I came to the conclusion that there was no reason why I should interfere. As the hon. Gentleman has said, I have had further representations from him and I made further inquiries. It is certain that an accused has the fullest opportunity of objecting to any count made against him at the time. The proper procedure, no doubt, is for anyone charged to inform the person he is employing to defend him and enter a written notice to the Court. That was not, in fact, done, and while this man had a legal adviser carrying out his defence, he did not so inform that legal adviser, but subsequently, having been convicted by the jury, when he was asked whether he had any objection to make to the charges which were made against him, he did so object.
He was then told by the sheriff that in any case he was not taking these previous convictions into account, but that he was dealing with the case on the cir-
cumstances as they were before him. Hon. Members may say, as has been said, that it is beyond the Judge's power not to take these things into account and that he must take all the circumstances into consideration. While the sheriff did say, and I am bound to take his word for it, when he gave sentence that he did so without taking into consideration these previous convictions which, as the sheriff, I think, clearly indicated, had taken place some time previously, he was justified in taking into consideration the conviction for housebreaking, I think in this very same calendar year, and, in dealing with the prisoner, to take that and the existing circumstances into the fullest consideration. That, I believe, he did.
I was perfectly willing, anxious indeed, to see that there should be not the slightest idea of injustice. Therefore I consulted with my office and I came to the conclusion that I could recommend a reduction of the sentence by three months. The hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), no doubt, would desire that I should have made the reduction more, but I, on the other hand, have to consider most carefully all the circumstances of the case. I have not found myself able to make any greater reduction, but I do think that I have met in no small measure any question which might have arisen. I would say in regard to the errors which were committed, that those who know the circumstances of our Courts in Scotland know well that while it is possible for these things to occur they very seldom do occur, and that the safeguards against them are not only the constant supervision of the trained staffs but the fact that the circumstances are open to challenge by the persons concerned. The fact remains that that challenge was allowed to the individual, and while it was not taken advantage of in the first instance under the rules of the Court, it was taken advantage of, and, in fact, no real disability fell upon the person so dealt with.

Mr. MAXTON: From the right hon. Gentleman's recital of the facts, do I understand him to say that the previous convictions were read out in the Court to the jury before the jury decided whether the prisoner was guilty or not guilty? I took that to be the right hon. Gentleman's statement.

Sir J. GILMOUR: I cannot say what exactly passed in the Court. Undoubtedly, a list of previous convictions of the prisoner was placed before the sheriff, but I do not think it was placed before the jury, because the jury had to consider only the circumstances of the actual charge. The actual charge-sheet goes, I understand, before the sheriff and not before the jury, but, as was clear, the sheriff asserted in dealing with the case that he was not taking into consideration the previous convictions. As a matter of fact the sentence was not a question for the jury but for the sheriff, after the jury had considered whether on the particular count on which the individual was brought before the Court he was guilty or not guilty. Therefore, the jury had nothing to do with that problem. The only thing that arose was that the records of previous convictions put in by the State were before the sheriff.

Mr. MAXTON: My point is this: the jury found the prisoner guilty and at that stage the prosecutor on behalf of the Crown read out the previous convictions. That would be the procedure I take it, and then the sheriff, having the convictions before him, gives sentence.

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, pardon me. He is found guilty, and then the sheriff asked if the individual had any objection to raise, and it was then that objection was raised. The sheriff was well aware of the previous convictions, but he pointed out that while the objection could not be then considered under the rules of the Court, he was not taking them into consideration in giving his sentence.

Mr. JOHNSTON: The story I want to raise for a moment or two, of which I have given the right hon. Gentleman notice, is another story of the alleged justice which is operating in Scotland to-day. It is a story almost without compare for the last 10 or 15 years in the annals of sheer oppression and wanton cruelty. The only offence of which three men and one boy can be alleged to be guilty is the offence of attempting to produce food; attempting to earn their living on the soil. They offered to pay rent for the land, and are willing now to pay rent. The only offence that can be alleged against them is the offence of producing food on the soil of the land of Harris
without having permission. For over nine years these three ex-service men have waited for land. They were definitely promised land. A representative from the Board of Agriculture has been to this particular farm and measured out the plots, discussed the thing with them, and said to them, "That is what you will get, and that is what you will get; but it requires confirmation, and I cannot give it." They firmly believed after all these years that a promise made on behalf of the Government was going to be carried out.
The farm was a suitable one. It had been in the ownership of the late Lord Leverhulme's trustees, but when it was sold the Board of Agriculture did not purchase and allowed it to go into the hands of a man who had been in the employ of the late Lord Leverhulme. After the Board of Agriculture's representative had measured the farm—I ought to mention that the boy represented his mother and a large family—these three men and the boy went on to this farm at Scaristaveg, in the Parish of Harris, on the 1st of March, 1926, and began to plough and make preparations for earning a living. They put up houses; they offered rent, and they offer rent now. The proprietor was not there on the 1st of March, the day on which the farm was raided. He lives merely across the road from the farm and knows what is going on. When the ex-Secretary of State for Scotland and I visited this farm last Whitsuntide we saw the proprietor, and also these men, so that we know something of the subject about which we are talking. The men started to plough the land and to prepare for occupancy. Finally, I believe, negotiations between the proprietor and the Board of Agriculture broke down. I believe the Board of Agriculture declined to pay the price that the proprietor asked. I believe he asked for considerably more than he had paid for the farm to Lord Leverhulme's trustees. After the negotiations had broken down, the four men were interdicted. That was after they had begun to rear stock, after they had been nine months on the farm. The village constable had not troubled them before then and no one had interfered with them. They were interdicted and sentenced to two months' imprisonment in Inverness gaol. I was so impressed with their story that I could
hardly believe it. I know of many things that the Secretary of State has done in agricultural and rural affairs in Scotland, but I never heard of anything like this. I was so impressed that I went at my own expense to Inverness gaol, got a permit, and interviewed the men in the presence of the Governor. They struck me as being an honest, decent and respectable type of individuals. No one has ever said a word against their characters before.
In the presence of the Governor they said that if they got their release they could do nothing else but go back to the land; the only alternative was sheer starvation. They expressed the intention of going on with the sentence, and, after serving it, to go back to the land and endeavour by that means to draw public attention to the wrongs they were suffering. By what exact methods I do not know, but suddenly these four men were released. The statement was made in this House that they had given a pledge that they would not go back to this land. I had a telegram from them denying that they had given any such pledge, and I do not believe they had given any such pledge. They certainly gave no pledge in writing. At any rate, the Secretary of State has never been able to produce such a pledge or any representative of the Government who could honestly say that such a pledge was given.

Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: I also went to see these men in gaol, and I say now in the presence of every Member who is here that these men gave me a pledge and gave the prison governor a pledge that they would not break the law when they got back to Harris.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Of course one accepts the hon. Member's statement, but I can only say that his recollection of what happened is in violent contradiction of the recollection of the four men. At any rate the four men went back from Inverness gaol to the farm of Scaristaveg. They went on the land again, and when my right hon. Friend, the late Secretary for Scotland, and I visited them, they were still offering rent. Nothing happened from last April until the month of November last. They were on good terms with the local police and all the rest of them, and no one interfered with them. They think they have a free pardon and they are merely waiting until
the Board of Agriculture or some higher authority will settle the matter of the land. They are cultivating the soil. In November, the four of them were cited to appear at a neighbouring Sheriff Court for breach of the original interdict. I asked a question of the right hon. Gentleman on the 15th December. His answer must have been given under a misapprehension for I am quite certain that he did not intend to mislead me or the House or the country. I specifically asked him three times that day whether these proceedings were being taken with the concurrence of his Department. He first dissented and then, when I asked again, said that this action was being taken by the proprietors without any part being taken by the Government. I hold in my hand a copy of the original Citation and from its contents I do not think there is the slightest doubt that the machinery of the Lord Advocate's Department is particeps criminis in this and is actively pursuing these men. The right hon. Gentleman ought to make a full statement as to how far his Department is responsible, actively or passively, for these proceedings.
What happened? These four men were summoned for the 15th of December. Two of them, who had already got accommodation at a neighbouring farm, an uncle and a nephew, appeared in Court. They said they had no longer any necessity to stay on this farm at Scaristaveg; they had now got accommodation elsewhere. They expressed contrition and said they would never do it again and were prepared to take their stock and appurtenances off the farm. Under the circumstances one would have thought that they would at least have been told to get away clear from the Court, but no. Despite the fact that there is no raiding and that they have settled on a neighbouring farm, these two poor devils, after their apology, got two months' imprisonment which they are now serving.
The two men who have not got accommodation, who are still at Scaristaveg, were arrested and taken to the Sheriff Court. There the Sheriff asked them if they bad issued written answers. What did they know about the law? "No," they said, "we have not issued written answers and when we sent them before they were refused." The Sheriff said, "Very well, on this occasion I cannot
try your case to-day. Go back to Scaristaveg and I will try your case on the 5th of January." They are now waiting for that date and what happens then remains to be seen. Some of my hon. Friends have advised me to speak softly to the right hon. Gentleman, saying that if I do so I will succeed. I have tried everything, I have spoken softly to him, interviewed him, begged him, written to him. I do not know what it is to be done. The right hon. Gentleman stands for a policy which means the steady depopulation of Scotland. My race is disappearing, the people I stand for in this House are being driven from the soil. He supplies me with figures showing that our outdoor rate of pauperism is almost double that in England. With powers in the hands of his Department he does nothing effective for nine years. Ex-Service men
were promised land but, as regards these particular men, two are in gaol and two are harassed with the prospect of what may happen to them when they go back to the Sheriff Court. I have not the remotest idea of what is to be done. Possibly something might be done if English Members would take a hand in bringing pressure to bear on the Scottish Office which is the most reactionary Department in this Government. I, for one, would cheerfully "swop" the present Secretary of State for Scotland for any member of the Government. I would take the Home Secretary or any other—

It being one hour after the conclusion of Government business, Mr. SPEAKER, adjourned the House, without Question put.

Adjourned at Four Minutes before Eleven o'Clock.